PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
RUNN vs. XMHQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

RUNN vs. XMHQ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

RUNN (Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF) and XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RUNN is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Running Oak, while XMHQ is a Quality Factor fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. RUNN is actively managed, while XMHQ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RUNN returned 8.49%/yr vs 13.54%/yr for XMHQ. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. RUNN charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for XMHQ.

Performance

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RUNN achieves a 1.94% return, which is significantly lower than XMHQ's 12.54% return.

RUNN

1D
0.13%
1M
2.15%
6M
-1.57%
YTD
1.94%
1Y
1.69%
3Y*
8.49%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
10.45%

XMHQ

1D
0.26%
1M
1.40%
6M
8.28%
YTD
12.54%
1Y
16.17%
3Y*
13.54%
5Y*
10.18%
10Y*
12.83%
ALL TIME*
9.48%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

RUNN

Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF
$6.62M$3.92M$2.57M

XMHQ

Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
$19.95M$19.43M$20.53M

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
RUNN
Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF		1.94%2.30%17.16%11.90%
XMHQ
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF		12.54%4.71%16.79%15.25%

Correlation

The correlation between RUNN and XMHQ is 0.75, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.75

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 8, 2023

0.83

The correlation between RUNN and XMHQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
RUNN
XMHQ

Industrials

36.0%
30.2%

Technology

19.6%
18.5%

Healthcare

13.3%
16.0%

Financial Services

12.8%
15.1%

Consumer Cyclical

8.3%
9.4%

Basic Materials

3.7%
1.5%

Communication Services

2.1%
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

-

1.1%

Energy

-

6.9%

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

2.2%

Industrials

RUNN
36.0%
XMHQ
30.2%

Technology

RUNN
19.6%
XMHQ
18.5%

Healthcare

RUNN
13.3%
XMHQ
16.0%

Financial Services

RUNN
12.8%
XMHQ
15.1%

Consumer Cyclical

RUNN
8.3%
XMHQ
9.4%

Basic Materials

RUNN
3.7%
XMHQ
1.5%

Communication Services

RUNN
2.1%
XMHQ
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

RUNN

-

XMHQ
1.1%

Energy

RUNN

-

XMHQ
6.9%

Real Estate

RUNN

-

XMHQ

-

Utilities

RUNN

-

XMHQ
2.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF

Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF

Often compared with RUNN:
RUNN vs. RECSRUNN vs. VOORUNN vs. FRTYRUNN vs. FMDERUNN vs. IJHRUNN vs. SPYGRUNN vs. SPY
Often compared with XMHQ:
XMHQ vs. XMMOXMHQ vs. IMCGXMHQ vs. MDYXMHQ vs. RFVXMHQ vs. RWKXMHQ vs. GRPMXMHQ vs. FLQM

Return for Risk

RUNN vs. XMHQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
RUNN
RUNN Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
RUNN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RUNN Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
RUNN Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
RUNN Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
RUNN Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank
XMHQ
XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). 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.

RUNNXMHQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.04
0.95

-0.91

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.16
1.47

-1.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.02

1.17

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.05

1.64

-1.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.10

4.86

-4.76

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RUNN Sharpe Ratio is 0.04, which is lower than the XMHQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RUNN and XMHQ, 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...

Drawdowns

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RUNN drawdown since its inception was -16.83%, smaller than the maximum XMHQ drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RUNN and XMHQ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RUNNXMHQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.83%

-58.19%

+41.36%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.34%

-8.85%

-1.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.83%

-24.56%

+7.73%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-25.47%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-36.90%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.20%

-0.02%

-3.18%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.68%

-9.22%

+5.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.90%

2.97%

+1.93%

Volatility

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison

Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) has a higher volatility of 5.07% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) at 3.13%. This indicates that RUNN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RUNNXMHQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.07%

3.13%

+1.94%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.41%

11.07%

-0.66%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.65%

15.30%

-1.65%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.90%

20.57%

-6.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.90%

20.63%

-6.73%

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

RUNN has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than XMHQ's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

RUNN vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison

RUNN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, less than XMHQ's 0.56% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RUNN
Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF		0.54%0.55%0.39%0.33%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XMHQ
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF		0.56%0.64%5.20%0.73%1.72%1.00%1.12%1.22%1.59%1.06%1.63%1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

RUNN and XMHQ have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RUNN has higher volatility (5.07%) compared to XMHQ (3.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RUNN dropped -16.83% vs XMHQ's -58.19%.

On 3-year performance, XMHQ leads with 13.54% vs 8.49% for RUNN. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, XMHQ has performed better with a 13.54% return vs 8.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for RUNN.

XMHQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.54% for RUNN.

RUNN is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while XMHQ is Quality Factor. They also come from different issuers: Running Oak and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for RUNN and 0.25% for XMHQ.

XMHQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.95 vs 0.04), 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 RUNN and XMHQ

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