RSPF vs. HSBH

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RSPF (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF) and HSBH (HSBC Holdings plc ADRhedged ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - RSPF tracks the S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Financials -SEC while HSBH tracks the HSBC Holdings plc Local Shares Total Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RSPF returned 6.44% vs 71.13% for HSBH. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RSPF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for HSBH.

Performance

RSPF vs. HSBH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) and HSBC Holdings plc ADRhedged ETF (HSBH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPF achieves a -0.50% return, which is significantly lower than HSBH's 26.93% return.

RSPF

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 2.51%
• YTD: -0.50%
• 6M: -1.82%
• 1Y: 6.44%
• 3Y*: 18.00%
• 5Y*: 7.35%
• 10Y*: 12.51%

HSBH

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 5.69%
• YTD: 26.93%
• 6M: 26.23%
• 1Y: 71.13%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RSPF vs. HSBH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF	-0.50%	17.19%
HSBH HSBC Holdings plc ADRhedged ETF	26.93%	39.95%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPF and HSBH is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 23, 2025	0.40

RSPF vs. HSBH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSPF	HSBH
Financial Services	92.6%	97.4%
Technology	6.1%	-
Industrials	1.3%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RSPF vs. HSBH — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

RSPF

RSPF Risk / Return Rank: 14
RSPF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
RSPF Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
RSPF Omega Ratio Rank: 14
RSPF Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
RSPF Martin Ratio Rank: 14

HSBH

HSBH Risk / Return Rank: 90
HSBH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
HSBH Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
HSBH Omega Ratio Rank: 90
HSBH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
HSBH Martin Ratio Rank: 88

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

RSPF vs. HSBH - 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 HSBC Holdings plc ADRhedged ETF (HSBH). 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	HSBH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.43	3.02	-2.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.69	3.80	-3.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.52	-0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.46	4.83	-4.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.26	17.50	-16.24

RSPF vs. HSBH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPF Sharpe Ratio is 0.43, which is lower than the HSBH Sharpe Ratio of 3.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPF and HSBH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

RSPF vs. HSBH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPF drawdown since its inception was -81.32%, which is greater than HSBH's maximum drawdown of -14.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPF and HSBH.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPF	HSBH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.32%	-14.81%	-66.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.13%	-14.81%	+0.68%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.38%	-0.47%	-2.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.00%	-2.33%	-16.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.14%	4.08%	+1.06%

Volatility

RSPF vs. HSBH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) is 4.11%, while HSBC Holdings plc ADRhedged ETF (HSBH) has a volatility of 8.22%. This indicates that RSPF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HSBH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSPF	HSBH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.11%	8.22%	-4.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.43%	19.28%	-7.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.14%	23.64%	-8.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.77%	22.88%	-3.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.87%	22.88%	-0.01%

RSPF vs. HSBH - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than HSBH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPF vs. HSBH - Dividend Comparison

RSPF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.62%, less than HSBH's 2.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HSBH HSBC Holdings plc ADRhedged ETF	2.34%	0.00%	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	1.62%	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

Can I hold both RSPF and HSBH in my portfolio?

RSPF and HSBH have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSPF or HSBH?

HSBH has higher volatility (8.22%) compared to RSPF (4.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPF dropped -81.32% vs HSBH's -14.81%.

Which ETF is better, RSPF or HSBH?

On 1-year performance, HSBH leads with 71.13% vs 6.44% for RSPF. On fees, HSBH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, RSPF has been the lower-risk option at 4.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPF or HSBH?

Over the 1-year period, HSBH has performed better with a 71.13% return vs 6.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPF or HSBH?

HSBH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSPF or HSBH?

HSBH has the higher dividend yield at 2.34%, compared with 1.62% for RSPF.

What is the main difference between RSPF and HSBH?

RSPF tracks S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Financials -SEC, while HSBH tracks HSBC Holdings plc Local Shares Total Return. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and ADRhedged. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPF and 0.19% for HSBH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HSBH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.02 vs 0.43), 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.