RSPH vs. OZEM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RSPH (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF) and OZEM (Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. RSPH is passively managed, while OZEM is actively managed. Over the past year, RSPH returned 25.63% vs 32.51% for OZEM. Their 0.50 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RSPH charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for OZEM.

Performance

RSPH vs. OZEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) and Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF (OZEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPH achieves a 9.56% return, which is significantly higher than OZEM's -7.04% return.

RSPH

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: 0.70%
• 6M: 8.20%
• YTD: 9.56%
• 1Y: 25.63%
• 3Y*: 6.05%
• 5Y*: 3.14%
• 10Y*: 8.73%
• ALL TIME*: 10.98%

OZEM

• 1D: -2.34%
• 1M: -5.35%
• 6M: -11.60%
• YTD: -7.04%
• 1Y: 32.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.44%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
OZEM Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF	$377.67K	$656.35K	$729.31K
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	$2.33M	$3.63M	$4.82M

RSPH vs. OZEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	9.56%	9.52%	-5.04%
OZEM Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF	-7.04%	41.87%	-3.85%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPH and OZEM is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2024	0.50

The correlation between RSPH and OZEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.50 - a consistent structural relationship.

RSPH vs. OZEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSPH	OZEM
Healthcare	96.6%	99.2%
Technology	1.8%	0.0%
Financial Services	0.1%	0.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RSPH vs. OZEM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RSPH

RSPH Risk / Return Rank: 66
RSPH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
RSPH Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RSPH Omega Ratio Rank: 67
RSPH Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
RSPH Martin Ratio Rank: 51

OZEM

OZEM Risk / Return Rank: 52
OZEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
OZEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
OZEM Omega Ratio Rank: 56
OZEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
OZEM Martin Ratio Rank: 34

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RSPH vs. OZEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) and Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF (OZEM). 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.

	RSPH	OZEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	1.42	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.41	2.08	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.25	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.34	1.71	+0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.96	3.34	+2.62

RSPH vs. OZEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPH Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is comparable to the OZEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPH and OZEM, 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

RSPH vs. OZEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPH drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, which is greater than OZEM's maximum drawdown of -28.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPH and OZEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPH	OZEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.49%	-28.65%	-11.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-19.50%	+8.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.44%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.22%	-14.20%	+12.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.11%	-9.24%	+3.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.27%	9.95%	-5.68%

Volatility

RSPH vs. OZEM - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) and Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF (OZEM) have volatilities of 5.90% and 5.88%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSPH	OZEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.90%	5.88%	+0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.99%	16.84%	-4.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.35%	23.63%	-7.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.55%	24.82%	-8.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.79%	24.82%	-7.03%

RSPH vs. OZEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPH has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than OZEM's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPH vs. OZEM - Dividend Comparison

RSPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, less than OZEM's 1.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
OZEM Roundhill Glp-1 & Weight Loss ETF	1.29%	1.20%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	0.67%	0.70%	0.71%	0.66%	0.64%	0.50%	0.51%	0.54%	0.53%	0.47%	0.48%	0.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSPH and OZEM in my portfolio?

RSPH and OZEM have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSPH or OZEM?

RSPH has higher volatility (5.90%) compared to OZEM (5.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPH dropped -40.49% vs OZEM's -28.65%.

Which ETF is better, RSPH or OZEM?

On 1-year performance, OZEM leads with 32.51% vs 25.63% for RSPH. On fees, RSPH is cheaper at 0.40% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPH or OZEM?

Over the 1-year period, OZEM has performed better with a 32.51% return vs 25.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPH or OZEM?

RSPH is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for OZEM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSPH or OZEM?

OZEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.29%, compared with 0.67% for RSPH.

What is the main difference between RSPH and OZEM?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPH and 0.59% for OZEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSPH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 1.42), 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.