RSPG vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RSPG (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RSPG is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy Plus Index, while XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RSPG returned 9.73%/yr vs 17.27%/yr for XLG. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RSPG charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

RSPG vs. XLG - 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 S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPG achieves a 34.27% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 7.57% return. Over the past 10 years, RSPG has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 9.73%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 17.27% annualized return.

RSPG

• 1D: 1.25%
• 1M: -2.65%
• YTD: 34.27%
• 6M: 28.95%
• 1Y: 47.49%
• 3Y*: 19.93%
• 5Y*: 21.10%
• 10Y*: 9.73%

XLG

• 1D: -1.15%
• 1M: 4.22%
• YTD: 7.57%
• 6M: 7.32%
• 1Y: 28.54%
• 3Y*: 24.46%
• 5Y*: 16.24%
• 10Y*: 17.27%

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

RSPG vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF	34.27%	7.01%	6.09%	4.49%	57.97%	57.73%	-32.44%	13.38%	-24.68%	-6.39%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	7.57%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPG and XLG is -0.14, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.14
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2006	0.46

The correlation between RSPG and XLG shifts across timeframes, from -0.14 (1 year) to 0.46 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RSPG vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSPG	XLG
Energy	100.0%	2.7%
Financial Services	0.0%	9.6%
Basic Materials	-	0.6%
Communication Services	-	17.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.8%
Healthcare	-	7.0%
Industrials	-	1.9%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	43.9%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RSPG vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPG

RSPG Risk / Return Rank: 64
RSPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
RSPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
RSPG Omega Ratio Rank: 56
RSPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
RSPG Martin Ratio Rank: 63

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 56
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 61
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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. XLG - 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 S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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.

	RSPG	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.20	2.15	+0.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.80	2.92	-0.13
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.38	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.92	2.31	+1.61
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.59	8.66	+2.93
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSPG vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPG Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPG and XLG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RSPG	XLG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.20	2.15	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	0.87	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.29	0.92	-0.63
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	0.62	-0.44

Drawdowns

RSPG vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPG drawdown since its inception was -79.98%, which is greater than XLG's maximum drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPG and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPG	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.98%	-52.39%	-27.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.18%	-12.41%	+0.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.06%	-20.70%	-2.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.44%	-28.02%	-0.42%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.17%	-30.46%	-42.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.67%	-1.44%	-4.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.47%	-7.64%	-17.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.11%	3.30%	+0.81%

Volatility

RSPG vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG) has a higher volatility of 8.19% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) at 3.19%. This indicates that RSPG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSPG	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.19%	3.19%	+5.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.77%	9.80%	+6.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.69%	13.33%	+8.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.31%	18.68%	+9.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.57%	18.84%	+14.73%

RSPG vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPG has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPG vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

RSPG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.94%, more than XLG's 0.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF	1.94%	2.60%	2.43%	2.84%	3.43%	2.37%	3.15%	2.15%	2.18%	2.55%	1.14%	2.80%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.60%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSPG and XLG in my portfolio?

RSPG and XLG have a correlation of -0.14, 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 XLG?

RSPG has higher volatility (8.19%) compared to XLG (3.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPG dropped -79.98% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, RSPG or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 17.27% vs 9.73% for RSPG. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, XLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPG or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.27% return vs 9.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPG or XLG?

XLG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPG.

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

RSPG has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.60% for XLG.

What is the main difference between RSPG and XLG?

RSPG is categorized as Energy Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. RSPG tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy Plus Index, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPG and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSPG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 2.15), 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.