RSPH vs. PSIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RSPH (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF) and PSIL (AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF) are both Health & Biotech Equities funds. RSPH is passively managed, while PSIL is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RSPH returned 3.21%/yr vs 9.55%/yr for PSIL. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RSPH charges 0.40%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for PSIL.

Performance

RSPH vs. PSIL - 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 AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPH achieves a -2.71% return, which is significantly lower than PSIL's 20.15% return.

RSPH

• 1D: 0.81%
• 1M: 2.49%
• YTD: -2.71%
• 6M: -2.70%
• 1Y: 8.70%
• 3Y*: 3.21%
• 5Y*: 2.54%
• 10Y*: 7.94%

PSIL

• 1D: -2.57%
• 1M: 1.88%
• YTD: 20.15%
• 6M: 23.74%
• 1Y: 65.52%
• 3Y*: 9.55%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RSPH vs. PSIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	-2.71%	9.52%	-0.94%	3.95%	-9.40%	2.62%
PSIL AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF	20.15%	74.55%	-19.50%	-25.12%	-67.24%	-41.98%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPH and PSIL is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2021	0.33

RSPH vs. PSIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSPH	PSIL
Healthcare	98.5%	100.0%
Financial Services	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RSPH vs. PSIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPH

RSPH Risk / Return Rank: 18
RSPH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
RSPH Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
RSPH Omega Ratio Rank: 17
RSPH Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
RSPH Martin Ratio Rank: 19

PSIL

PSIL Risk / Return Rank: 48
PSIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
PSIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
PSIL Omega Ratio Rank: 43
PSIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
PSIL Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

RSPH vs. PSIL - 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 AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL). 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.

	RSPH	PSIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.57	1.58	-1.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.91	2.14	-1.22
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.27	-0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.80	3.23	-2.43
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.01	6.82	-4.81
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSPH vs. PSIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPH Sharpe Ratio is 0.57, which is lower than the PSIL Sharpe Ratio of 1.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPH and PSIL, 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

	RSPH	PSIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.57	1.58	-1.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	-0.42	+0.99

Drawdowns

RSPH vs. PSIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPH drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, smaller than the maximum PSIL drawdown of -92.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPH and PSIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPH	PSIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.49%	-92.72%	+52.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-20.38%	+9.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.13%	-64.62%	+47.49%
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	-6.83%	-76.63%	+69.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.14%	-76.76%	+70.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.33%	9.63%	-5.30%

Volatility

RSPH vs. PSIL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF (RSPH) is 3.87%, while AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF (PSIL) has a volatility of 9.76%. This indicates that RSPH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PSIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSPH	PSIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.87%	9.76%	-5.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.36%	27.89%	-17.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.46%	41.80%	-26.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.26%	63.15%	-46.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.72%	63.15%	-45.43%

RSPH vs. PSIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPH has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than PSIL's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPH vs. PSIL - Dividend Comparison

RSPH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, less than PSIL's 8.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PSIL AdvisorShares Psychedelics ETF	8.32%	10.95%	1.49%	0.24%	2.91%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RSPH Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Health Care ETF	0.73%	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 PSIL in my portfolio?

RSPH and PSIL have a correlation of 0.27, 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 PSIL?

PSIL has higher volatility (9.76%) compared to RSPH (3.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPH dropped -40.49% vs PSIL's -92.72%.

Which ETF is better, RSPH or PSIL?

On 3-year performance, PSIL leads with 9.55% vs 3.21% for RSPH. On fees, RSPH is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, RSPH has been the lower-risk option at 3.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPH or PSIL?

Over the 3-year period, PSIL has performed better with a 9.55% return vs 3.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPH or PSIL?

RSPH is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for PSIL.

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

PSIL has the higher dividend yield at 8.32%, compared with 0.73% for RSPH.

What is the main difference between RSPH and PSIL?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and AdvisorShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPH and 1.00% for PSIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PSIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.58 vs 0.57), 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.