RWJ vs. ECML

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RWJ (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF) and ECML (EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. RWJ is passively managed, while ECML is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RWJ returned 16.43%/yr vs 15.57%/yr for ECML. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RWJ charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for ECML.

Performance

RWJ vs. ECML - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF (RWJ) and EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWJ achieves a 15.88% return, which is significantly higher than ECML's 14.39% return.

RWJ

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: 1.90%
• YTD: 15.88%
• 6M: 14.97%
• 1Y: 36.55%
• 3Y*: 16.43%
• 5Y*: 7.73%
• 10Y*: 13.02%

ECML

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 1.49%
• YTD: 14.39%
• 6M: 14.23%
• 1Y: 26.84%
• 3Y*: 15.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RWJ vs. ECML - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RWJ Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF	15.88%	7.75%	11.81%	14.67%
ECML EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	14.39%	6.82%	2.37%	24.36%

Correlation

The correlation between RWJ and ECML is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2023	0.87

The correlation between RWJ and ECML has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWJ vs. ECML - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWJ	ECML
Consumer Cyclical	23.9%	23.8%
Industrials	16.2%	14.2%
Healthcare	11.2%	16.6%
Financial Services	11.0%	-
Technology	9.9%	5.3%
Energy	7.4%	13.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	12.4%
Basic Materials	5.2%	10.6%
Real Estate	4.0%	-
Communication Services	3.3%	3.9%
Utilities	0.9%	1.4%

Return for Risk

RWJ vs. ECML — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWJ

RWJ Risk / Return Rank: 57
RWJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
RWJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
RWJ Omega Ratio Rank: 52
RWJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
RWJ Martin Ratio Rank: 58

ECML

ECML Risk / Return Rank: 61
ECML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ECML Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
ECML Omega Ratio Rank: 53
ECML Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
ECML Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

RWJ vs. ECML - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF (RWJ) and EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML). 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.

	RWJ	ECML	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	1.86	+0.04
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	2.85	-0.10
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.32	0.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.25	3.85	-0.60
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.39	11.05	-0.66
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RWJ vs. ECML - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWJ Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the ECML Sharpe Ratio of 1.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWJ and ECML, 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

	RWJ	ECML	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.90	1.86	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.33	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.86	-0.40

Drawdowns

RWJ vs. ECML - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWJ drawdown since its inception was -55.97%, which is greater than ECML's maximum drawdown of -24.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWJ and ECML.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWJ	ECML	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.97%	-24.66%	-31.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.31%	-7.01%	-4.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.29%	-24.66%	-4.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-51.33%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.07%	-0.27%	-0.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.24%	-5.88%	-3.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.53%	2.44%	+1.09%

Volatility

RWJ vs. ECML - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF (RWJ) has a higher volatility of 4.64% compared to EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) at 3.84%. This indicates that RWJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ECML based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWJ	ECML	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.64%	3.84%	+0.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.29%	9.75%	+2.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.40%	14.56%	+4.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.71%	18.39%	+5.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.14%	18.39%	+7.75%

RWJ vs. ECML - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWJ has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than ECML's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWJ vs. ECML - Dividend Comparison

RWJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less than ECML's 1.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECML EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	1.20%	1.38%	0.98%	0.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RWJ Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF	1.01%	1.11%	1.15%	1.34%	1.02%	0.61%	0.89%	1.22%	1.44%	1.11%	0.60%	0.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWJ and ECML in my portfolio?

RWJ and ECML have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RWJ or ECML?

RWJ has higher volatility (4.64%) compared to ECML (3.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWJ dropped -55.97% vs ECML's -24.66%.

Which ETF is better, RWJ or ECML?

On 3-year performance, RWJ leads with 16.43% vs 15.57% for ECML. On fees, RWJ is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ECML has been the lower-risk option at 3.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWJ or ECML?

Over the 3-year period, RWJ has performed better with a 16.43% return vs 15.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWJ or ECML?

RWJ is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ECML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RWJ or ECML?

ECML has the higher dividend yield at 1.20%, compared with 1.01% for RWJ.

What is the main difference between RWJ and ECML?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Euclidean. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWJ and 0.95% for ECML.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 1.86), 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.