RSPF vs. IAT
RSPF (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF) and IAT (iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - RSPF tracks the S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Financials -SEC while IAT tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Select Regional Banks Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RSPF returned 12.45%/yr vs 9.50%/yr for IAT. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RSPF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for IAT.
Performance
RSPF vs. IAT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RSPF achieves a 5.58% return, which is significantly lower than IAT's 16.18% return. Over the past 10 years, RSPF has outperformed IAT with an annualized return of 12.45%, while IAT has yielded a comparatively lower 9.50% annualized return.
RSPF
- 1D
- 0.67%
- 1M
- 6.12%
- 6M
- 4.02%
- YTD
- 5.58%
- 1Y
- 9.31%
- 3Y*
- 18.41%
- 5Y*
- 8.79%
- 10Y*
- 12.45%
IAT
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 3.80%
- 6M
- 13.12%
- YTD
- 16.18%
- 1Y
- 24.86%
- 3Y*
- 25.36%
- 5Y*
- 5.44%
- 10Y*
- 9.50%
RSPF vs. IAT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF | 5.58% | 10.23% | 25.75% | 6.43% | -10.64% | 36.36% | 5.49% | 31.53% | -15.81% | 21.57% |
IAT iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF | 16.18% | 13.05% | 24.36% | -8.53% | -20.61% | 38.89% | -7.60% | 31.38% | -17.45% | 10.42% |
Correlation
The correlation between RSPF and IAT is 0.74, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.74 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.88 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2006 | 0.84 |
The correlation between RSPF and IAT shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (1 year) to 0.90 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
RSPF vs. IAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
RSPF
IAT
Financial Services
Technology
-
Industrials
-
Basic Materials
-
-
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Financial Services
RSPF
IAT
Technology
RSPF
IAT
-
Industrials
RSPF
IAT
-
Basic Materials
RSPF
-
IAT
-
Communication Services
RSPF
-
IAT
-
Consumer Cyclical
RSPF
-
IAT
-
Consumer Defensive
RSPF
-
IAT
-
Energy
RSPF
-
IAT
-
Healthcare
RSPF
-
IAT
-
Real Estate
RSPF
-
IAT
-
Utilities
RSPF
-
IAT
-
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. IAT — Risk / Return Rank
RSPF
IAT
RSPF vs. IAT - 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 iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT). 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 | IAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.53 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.67 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.21 | -0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.66 | 1.43 | -0.77 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.81 | 3.64 | -1.83 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RSPF vs. IAT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RSPF drawdown since its inception was -81.32%, which is greater than IAT's maximum drawdown of -77.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPF and IAT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RSPF | IAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -81.32% | -77.22% | -4.10% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.13% | -17.49% | +3.36% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.26% | -29.29% | +11.03% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.68% | -55.55% | +27.87% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -44.80% | -55.55% | +10.75% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.20% | +0.20% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -18.95% | -26.84% | +7.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.16% | 6.85% | -1.69% |
Volatility
RSPF vs. IAT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) is 4.53%, while iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF (IAT) has a volatility of 6.20%. This indicates that RSPF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RSPF | IAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.53% | 6.20% | -1.67% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.72% | 16.36% | -4.64% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.42% | 22.02% | -6.60% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.73% | 28.89% | -9.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.84% | 30.67% | -7.83% |
RSPF vs. IAT - Expense Ratio Comparison
RSPF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than IAT's 0.42% expense ratio.
Dividends
RSPF vs. IAT - Dividend Comparison
RSPF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, less than IAT's 2.55% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IAT iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF | 2.55% | 2.94% | 2.95% | 3.56% | 3.12% | 1.88% | 2.87% | 2.49% | 2.48% | 1.55% | 1.52% | 1.78% |
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF | 1.53% | 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 IAT have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IAT has higher volatility (6.20%) compared to RSPF (4.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPF dropped -81.32% vs IAT's -77.22%.
On 10-year performance, RSPF leads with 12.45% vs 9.50% for IAT. On fees, RSPF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, RSPF has been the lower-risk option at 4.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, RSPF has performed better with a 12.45% return vs 9.50%. 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 0.42% for IAT.
IAT has the higher dividend yield at 2.55%, compared with 1.53% for RSPF.
RSPF tracks S&P 500 Equal Weighted / Financials -SEC, while IAT tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Regional Banks Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPF and 0.42% for IAT.
IAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 0.61), 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 IAT
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