RSPG vs. PIPE

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

RSPG (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF) and PIPE (Invesco SteelPath MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF) are both Energy Equities funds from Invesco. RSPG is passively managed, while PIPE is actively managed. Over the past year, RSPG returned 38.02% vs 33.58% for PIPE. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RSPG charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for PIPE.

Performance

RSPG vs. PIPE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG) and Invesco SteelPath MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF (PIPE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RSPG having a 31.88% return and PIPE slightly lower at 30.84%.

RSPG

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: 0.29%
• 6M: 26.46%
• YTD: 31.88%
• 1Y: 38.02%
• 3Y*: 16.88%
• 5Y*: 23.71%
• 10Y*: 9.05%

PIPE

• 1D: 0.89%
• 1M: 2.80%
• 6M: 29.96%
• YTD: 30.84%
• 1Y: 33.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RSPG vs. PIPE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF	31.88%	-1.83%
PIPE Invesco SteelPath MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF	30.84%	0.14%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPG and PIPE is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 20, 2025	0.72

The correlation between RSPG and PIPE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

RSPG vs. PIPE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSPG	PIPE
Energy	100.0%	88.7%
Financial Services	0.0%	1.3%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

RSPG vs. PIPE — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPG

RSPG Risk / Return Rank: 61
RSPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
RSPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
RSPG Omega Ratio Rank: 57
RSPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
RSPG Martin Ratio Rank: 53

PIPE

PIPE Risk / Return Rank: 85
PIPE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
PIPE Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
PIPE Omega Ratio Rank: 83
PIPE Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
PIPE Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

RSPG vs. PIPE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG) and Invesco SteelPath MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF (PIPE). 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.

	RSPG	PIPE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.74	2.27	-0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.28	3.09	-0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.39	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	4.60	-1.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.17	11.11	-3.94

RSPG vs. PIPE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPG Sharpe Ratio is 1.74, which is comparable to the PIPE Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPG and PIPE, 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

RSPG vs. PIPE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPG drawdown since its inception was -79.98%, which is greater than PIPE's maximum drawdown of -15.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPG and PIPE.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPG	PIPE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.98%	-15.69%	-64.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.72%	-7.33%	-6.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.44%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.17%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.35%	-1.43%	-5.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.38%	-4.01%	-21.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.33%	3.03%	+2.30%

Volatility

RSPG vs. PIPE - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG) has a higher volatility of 6.94% compared to Invesco SteelPath MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF (PIPE) at 5.55%. This indicates that RSPG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PIPE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSPG	PIPE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.94%	5.55%	+1.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.87%	11.67%	+5.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.04%	14.86%	+7.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.09%	18.69%	+9.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.47%	18.69%	+14.78%

RSPG vs. PIPE - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPG has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than PIPE's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPG vs. PIPE - Dividend Comparison

RSPG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.01%, less than PIPE's 3.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PIPE Invesco SteelPath MLP & Energy Infrastructure ETF	3.63%	3.74%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF	2.01%	2.60%	2.43%	2.84%	3.43%	2.37%	3.15%	2.15%	2.18%	2.55%	1.14%	2.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSPG and PIPE in my portfolio?

RSPG and PIPE have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSPG or PIPE?

RSPG has higher volatility (6.94%) compared to PIPE (5.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPG dropped -79.98% vs PIPE's -15.69%.

Which ETF is better, RSPG or PIPE?

On 1-year performance, RSPG leads with 38.02% vs 33.58% for PIPE. On fees, RSPG is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, PIPE has been the lower-risk option at 5.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPG or PIPE?

Over the 1-year period, RSPG has performed better with a 38.02% return vs 33.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPG or PIPE?

RSPG is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for PIPE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSPG or PIPE?

PIPE has the higher dividend yield at 3.63%, compared with 2.01% for RSPG.

What is the main difference between RSPG and PIPE?

Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPG and 0.75% for PIPE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PIPE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 1.74), 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.