RWK vs. AFSC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RWK (Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF) and AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. RWK is passively managed, while AFSC is actively managed. Over the past year, RWK returned 26.41% vs 34.76% for AFSC. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RWK charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFSC.

Performance

RWK vs. AFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWK achieves a 13.93% return, which is significantly lower than AFSC's 24.40% return.

RWK

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 3.57%
• YTD: 13.93%
• 6M: 12.02%
• 1Y: 26.41%
• 3Y*: 17.49%
• 5Y*: 11.36%
• 10Y*: 13.12%

AFSC

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 6.74%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 6M: 19.46%
• 1Y: 34.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RWK vs. AFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RWK Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF	13.93%	6.95%
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	24.40%	2.33%

Correlation

The correlation between RWK and AFSC is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2025	0.84

The correlation between RWK and AFSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RWK vs. AFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWK

RWK Risk / Return Rank: 48
RWK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
RWK Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
RWK Omega Ratio Rank: 44
RWK Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
RWK Martin Ratio Rank: 48

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 65
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 53
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

RWK vs. AFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). 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.

	RWK	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.58	1.84	-0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.39	2.60	-0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.31	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	3.40	-1.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.64	12.89	-5.25

RWK vs. AFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWK Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is comparable to the AFSC Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWK and AFSC, 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

RWK vs. AFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWK drawdown since its inception was -56.49%, which is greater than AFSC's maximum drawdown of -21.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWK and AFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWK	AFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.49%	-21.93%	-34.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.14%	-10.29%	-0.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.58%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.58%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.20%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.79%	-1.29%	-0.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.53%	-4.12%	-3.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	2.70%	+0.76%

Volatility

RWK vs. AFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) is 4.36%, while abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) has a volatility of 5.46%. This indicates that RWK experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWK	AFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.36%	5.46%	-1.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.12%	14.59%	-2.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.82%	19.01%	-2.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.09%	22.51%	-1.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.93%	22.51%	+0.42%

RWK vs. AFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWK has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than AFSC's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWK vs. AFSC - Dividend Comparison

RWK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.04%, more than AFSC's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.06%	0.08%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RWK Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF	1.04%	1.25%	1.11%	1.05%	1.18%	0.85%	0.96%	1.09%	1.22%	0.99%	1.30%	0.92%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWK and AFSC in my portfolio?

RWK and AFSC have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RWK or AFSC?

AFSC has higher volatility (5.46%) compared to RWK (4.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWK dropped -56.49% vs AFSC's -21.93%.

Which ETF is better, RWK or AFSC?

On 1-year performance, AFSC leads with 34.76% vs 26.41% for RWK. On fees, RWK is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RWK has been the lower-risk option at 4.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWK or AFSC?

Over the 1-year period, AFSC has performed better with a 34.76% return vs 26.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWK or AFSC?

RWK is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RWK or AFSC?

RWK has the higher dividend yield at 1.04%, compared with 0.06% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between RWK and AFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWK and 0.65% for AFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.58), 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.