RSPF vs. FBDC
RSPF (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF) and FBDC (FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. RSPF is passively managed, while FBDC is actively managed. Over the past year, RSPF returned 13.09% vs -10.92% for FBDC. Their 0.55 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RSPF charges 0.40%/yr vs 1.35%/yr for FBDC.
Performance
RSPF vs. FBDC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RSPF achieves a 7.16% return, which is significantly higher than FBDC's -7.31% return.
RSPF
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- 2.81%
- 6M
- 8.05%
- YTD
- 7.16%
- 1Y
- 13.09%
- 3Y*
- 17.38%
- 5Y*
- 9.06%
- 10Y*
- 12.64%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.71%
FBDC
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- -0.49%
- 6M
- -6.64%
- YTD
- -7.31%
- 1Y
- -10.92%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -9.05%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $213.26K | $189.97K | $198.06K | |
| $1.52M | $1.88M | $1.39M |
RSPF vs. FBDC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF | 7.16% | 4.82% |
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF | -7.31% | -2.66% |
Correlation
The correlation between RSPF and FBDC is 0.56, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.56 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2025 | 0.55 |
The correlation between RSPF and FBDC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
RSPF vs. FBDC — Risk / Return Rank
RSPF
FBDC
RSPF vs. FBDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) and FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| RSPF | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.92 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | 0.91 | +0.22 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.79 | -0.64 | +1.43 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.17 | -1.14 | +3.31 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RSPF vs. FBDC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RSPF drawdown since its inception was -81.32%, which is greater than FBDC's maximum drawdown of -20.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPF and FBDC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RSPF | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -81.32% | -20.60% | -60.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.13% | -18.08% | +3.95% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.26% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.68% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -44.80% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.74% | -15.23% | +13.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.90% | -10.91% | -7.99% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.13% | 10.12% | -4.99% |
Volatility
RSPF vs. FBDC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) is 4.45%, while FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC) has a volatility of 4.72%. This indicates that RSPF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBDC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RSPF | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.45% | 4.72% | -0.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.54% | 14.60% | -3.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.40% | 18.15% | -2.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.65% | 17.81% | +1.84% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.85% | 17.81% | +5.04% |
RSPF vs. FBDC - Expense Ratio Comparison
RSPF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than FBDC's 1.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
RSPF vs. FBDC - Dividend Comparison
RSPF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, less than FBDC's 12.36% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF | 12.36% | 5.41% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF | 1.51% | 1.55% | 1.65% | 2.16% | 1.95% | 1.56% | 2.24% | 1.85% | 2.51% | 1.28% | 37.55% | 2.17% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RSPF and FBDC have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FBDC has higher volatility (4.72%) compared to RSPF (4.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPF dropped -81.32% vs FBDC's -20.60%.
On 1-year performance, RSPF leads with 13.09% vs -10.92% for FBDC. On fees, RSPF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, RSPF has been the lower-risk option at 4.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, RSPF has performed better with a 13.09% return vs -10.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RSPF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.35% for FBDC.
FBDC has the higher dividend yield at 12.36%, compared with 1.51% for RSPF.
They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPF and 1.35% for FBDC.
RSPF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.72 vs -0.64), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for RSPF and FBDC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer