PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RSPM vs. XMMO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RSPM vs. XMMO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF (RSPM) and Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPM achieves a 15.54% return, which is significantly lower than XMMO's 24.24% return. Over the past 10 years, RSPM has underperformed XMMO with an annualized return of 10.49%, while XMMO has yielded a comparatively higher 19.68% annualized return.


RSPM

1D
-0.21%
1M
-0.70%
YTD
15.54%
6M
19.82%
1Y
23.31%
3Y*
10.38%
5Y*
4.25%
10Y*
10.49%

XMMO

1D
0.42%
1M
5.53%
YTD
24.24%
6M
24.41%
1Y
38.04%
3Y*
32.57%
5Y*
16.79%
10Y*
19.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RSPM vs. XMMO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RSPM
Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF
15.54%6.90%-1.30%8.32%-9.95%31.21%22.77%25.11%-14.75%25.87%
XMMO
Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF
24.24%13.04%38.03%20.39%-16.02%16.69%29.17%36.78%6.12%37.18%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPM and XMMO is 0.56, 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

0.56

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.65

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2006

0.70

The correlation between RSPM and XMMO shifts across timeframes, from 0.56 (1 year) to 0.73 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RSPM vs. XMMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RSPM
XMMO

Basic Materials

79.4%
7.2%

Consumer Cyclical

20.6%
4.6%

Industrials

3.5%
41.1%

Financial Services

0.0%
2.4%

Communication Services

-

1.6%

Consumer Defensive

-

0.5%

Energy

-

7.7%

Healthcare

-

6.3%

Real Estate

-

6.1%

Technology

-

16.7%

Utilities

-

5.8%

Basic Materials

RSPM
79.4%
XMMO
7.2%

Consumer Cyclical

RSPM
20.6%
XMMO
4.6%

Industrials

RSPM
3.5%
XMMO
41.1%

Financial Services

RSPM
0.0%
XMMO
2.4%

Communication Services

RSPM

-

XMMO
1.6%

Consumer Defensive

RSPM

-

XMMO
0.5%

Energy

RSPM

-

XMMO
7.7%

Healthcare

RSPM

-

XMMO
6.3%

Real Estate

RSPM

-

XMMO
6.1%

Technology

RSPM

-

XMMO
16.7%

Utilities

RSPM

-

XMMO
5.8%

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

RSPM vs. XMMO — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPM
RSPM Risk / Return Rank: 3636
Overall Rank
RSPM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3636
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RSPM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
RSPM Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
RSPM Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
RSPM Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank

XMMO
XMMO Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
XMMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMMO Omega Ratio Rank: 5959
Omega Ratio Rank
XMMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMMO Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RSPM vs. XMMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF (RSPM) and Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO). 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.


RSPMXMMODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.75

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.91

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.23

1.36

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.90

4.58

-2.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.19

18.73

-13.54

RSPM vs. XMMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPM Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is lower than the XMMO Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPM and XMMO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RSPMXMMODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.29

2.04

-0.75

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.21

0.79

-0.57

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

0.89

-0.41

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.39

0.58

-0.19

Drawdowns

RSPM vs. XMMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPM drawdown since its inception was -61.18%, which is greater than XMMO's maximum drawdown of -55.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPM and XMMO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RSPMXMMODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-61.18%

-55.37%

-5.81%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.32%

-8.34%

-3.98%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.19%

-24.93%

-2.26%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.19%

-27.91%

+0.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.84%

-36.74%

-3.10%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.32%

0.00%

-4.32%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.79%

-9.45%

+0.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.50%

2.04%

+2.46%

Volatility

RSPM vs. XMMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF (RSPM) is 5.56%, while Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO) has a volatility of 7.69%. This indicates that RSPM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RSPMXMMODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.56%

7.69%

-2.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.36%

15.51%

-2.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.13%

18.70%

-0.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.12%

21.44%

-1.32%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.93%

22.26%

-0.33%

RSPM vs. XMMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPM has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than XMMO's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

RSPM vs. XMMO - Dividend Comparison

RSPM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, more than XMMO's 0.60% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RSPM
Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF
1.50%2.06%2.04%2.05%2.19%1.43%1.57%1.81%1.83%1.50%1.28%1.57%
XMMO
Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF
0.60%0.78%0.34%0.80%1.43%0.41%0.61%0.60%0.19%0.21%0.22%0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions


RSPM and XMMO have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XMMO has higher volatility (7.69%) compared to RSPM (5.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPM dropped -61.18% vs XMMO's -55.37%.

On 10-year performance, XMMO leads with 19.68% vs 10.49% for RSPM. On fees, XMMO is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RSPM has been the lower-risk option at 5.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XMMO has performed better with a 19.68% return vs 10.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

XMMO is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPM.

RSPM has the higher dividend yield at 1.50%, compared with 0.60% for XMMO.

RSPM is categorized as Materials, while XMMO is Momentum. RSPM tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Materials Index, while XMMO tracks S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPM and 0.35% for XMMO.

XMMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.29), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RSPM and XMMO

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