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. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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 -5.25% return, which is significantly higher than FBDC's -9.51% return.
RSPF
- 1D
- -1.76%
- 1M
- -1.96%
- YTD
- -5.25%
- 6M
- -2.72%
- 1Y
- 2.40%
- 3Y*
- 15.99%
- 5Y*
- 5.36%
- 10Y*
- 11.37%
FBDC
- 1D
- -2.98%
- 1M
- -7.81%
- YTD
- -9.51%
- 6M
- -10.31%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RSPF vs. FBDC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF | -5.25% | 3.90% |
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF | -9.51% | -2.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between RSPF and FBDC is 0.56, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025 | 0.56 |
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.
| RSPF | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.17 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.48 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RSPF | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.16 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.27 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.50 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.21 | -0.70 | +0.91 |
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% | — | — |
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 | -7.99% | -17.24% | +9.25% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.04% | -10.14% | -8.90% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.05% | — | — |
Volatility
RSPF vs. FBDC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RSPF | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.35% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.17% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.05% | 18.06% | -3.01% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.85% | 18.06% | +1.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.91% | 18.06% | +4.85% |
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 1.70%, less than FBDC's 11.52% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF | 11.52% | 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 | 1.70% | 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.
On fees, RSPF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
RSPF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.35% for FBDC.
FBDC has the higher dividend yield at 11.52%, compared with 1.70% 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.
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