RWK vs. QQQS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RWK (Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF) and QQQS (Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds from Invesco - RWK tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Revenue-Weighted Index while QQQS tracks the Nasdaq Innovators Completion Cap Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RWK returned 17.49%/yr vs 16.24%/yr for QQQS. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RWK charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for QQQS.

Performance

RWK vs. QQQS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) and Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS). 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 QQQS's 23.57% 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%

QQQS

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: -1.53%
• YTD: 23.57%
• 6M: 22.90%
• 1Y: 69.46%
• 3Y*: 16.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RWK vs. QQQS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RWK Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF	13.93%	10.27%	11.94%	23.76%	11.02%
QQQS Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF	23.57%	23.03%	10.20%	-1.94%	11.47%

Correlation

The correlation between RWK and QQQS is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2022	0.77

The correlation between RWK and QQQS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWK vs. QQQS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWK	QQQS
Industrials	22.1%	4.7%
Consumer Cyclical	20.4%	5.3%
Technology	16.1%	42.3%
Financial Services	12.1%	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	10.4%	1.6%
Energy	5.0%	2.0%
Basic Materials	4.9%	1.0%
Healthcare	4.2%	40.9%
Real Estate	2.6%	-
Utilities	1.6%	-
Communication Services	0.7%	2.1%

Return for Risk

RWK vs. QQQS — 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

QQQS

QQQS Risk / Return Rank: 80
QQQS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
QQQS Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
QQQS Omega Ratio Rank: 68
QQQS Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
QQQS Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. QQQS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) and Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS). 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	QQQS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.58	2.53	-0.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.39	3.20	-0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.38	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	5.12	-2.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.64	16.22	-8.57

RWK vs. QQQS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWK Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is lower than the QQQS Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWK and QQQS, 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. QQQS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWK drawdown since its inception was -56.49%, which is greater than QQQS's maximum drawdown of -38.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWK and QQQS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWK	QQQS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.49%	-38.06%	-18.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.14%	-13.63%	+2.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.58%	-34.32%	+9.74%
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%	-5.38%	+3.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.53%	-13.15%	+5.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	4.30%	-0.84%

Volatility

RWK vs. QQQS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) is 4.36%, while Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF (QQQS) has a volatility of 9.87%. This indicates that RWK experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWK	QQQS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.36%	9.87%	-5.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.12%	19.96%	-7.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.82%	27.61%	-10.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.09%	28.59%	-7.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.93%	28.59%	-5.66%

RWK vs. QQQS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWK has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQS's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWK vs. QQQS - Dividend Comparison

RWK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.04%, less than QQQS's 2.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QQQS Invesco NASDAQ Future Gen 200 ETF	2.67%	3.48%	0.80%	0.68%	0.04%	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 QQQS in my portfolio?

RWK and QQQS have a correlation of 0.73, 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 QQQS?

QQQS has higher volatility (9.87%) compared to RWK (4.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWK dropped -56.49% vs QQQS's -38.06%.

Which ETF is better, RWK or QQQS?

On 3-year performance, RWK leads with 17.49% vs 16.24% for QQQS. On fees, QQQS is cheaper at 0.20% 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 QQQS?

Over the 3-year period, RWK has performed better with a 17.49% return vs 16.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWK or QQQS?

QQQS is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for RWK.

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

QQQS has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 1.04% for RWK.

What is the main difference between RWK and QQQS?

RWK tracks S&P MidCap 400 Revenue-Weighted Index, while QQQS tracks Nasdaq Innovators Completion Cap Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWK and 0.20% for QQQS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 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.