RWK vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RWK (Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWK is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Revenue-Weighted Index, while XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWK returned 12.83%/yr vs 17.41%/yr for XLG. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RWK charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

RWK vs. XLG - 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 S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWK achieves a 13.73% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 8.82% return. Over the past 10 years, RWK has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 12.83%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 17.41% annualized return.

RWK

• 1D: 1.10%
• 1M: 3.22%
• YTD: 13.73%
• 6M: 14.17%
• 1Y: 30.18%
• 3Y*: 18.14%
• 5Y*: 10.78%
• 10Y*: 12.83%

XLG

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 5.06%
• YTD: 8.82%
• 6M: 8.60%
• 1Y: 30.80%
• 3Y*: 24.94%
• 5Y*: 16.76%
• 10Y*: 17.41%

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

RWK vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RWK Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF	13.73%	10.27%	11.94%	23.76%	-8.19%	34.31%	11.06%	28.20%	-14.65%	13.39%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	8.82%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between RWK and XLG is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.52
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2008	0.70

Over the past year, the correlation between RWK and XLG has dropped to 0.47 - well below their long-term average of 0.70, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RWK vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWK	XLG
Industrials	21.8%	1.9%
Consumer Cyclical	20.7%	11.3%
Technology	14.0%	43.9%
Financial Services	13.1%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	11.3%	5.8%
Energy	5.3%	2.7%
Basic Materials	4.7%	0.6%
Healthcare	4.0%	7.0%
Real Estate	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.6%	-
Communication Services	0.7%	17.1%

Return for Risk

RWK vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWK

RWK Risk / Return Rank: 52
RWK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
RWK Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
RWK Omega Ratio Rank: 50
RWK Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
RWK Martin Ratio Rank: 49

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 62
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 68
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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. XLG - 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 S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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.

	RWK	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.82	2.33	-0.52
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	3.14	-0.44
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.41	-0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	2.55	+0.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.44	9.60	-1.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RWK vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWK Sharpe Ratio is 1.82, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWK and XLG, 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

	RWK	XLG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.82	2.33	-0.52
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	0.90	-0.39
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.56	0.93	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.63	-0.15

Drawdowns

RWK vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWK drawdown since its inception was -56.49%, which is greater than XLG's maximum drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWK and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWK	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.49%	-52.39%	-4.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.14%	-12.41%	+1.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.58%	-20.70%	-3.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.58%	-28.02%	+3.44%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.20%	-30.46%	-15.74%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.29%	+0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.56%	-7.64%	+0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	3.30%	+0.16%

Volatility

RWK vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) has a higher volatility of 4.93% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) at 2.92%. This indicates that RWK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWK	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.93%	2.92%	+2.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.87%	9.73%	+2.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.72%	13.28%	+3.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.13%	18.68%	+2.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.96%	18.84%	+4.12%

RWK vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RWK vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

RWK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, more than XLG's 0.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RWK Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF	1.12%	1.25%	1.11%	1.05%	1.18%	0.85%	0.96%	1.09%	1.22%	0.99%	1.30%	0.92%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.59%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWK and XLG in my portfolio?

RWK and XLG have a correlation of 0.47, 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 XLG?

RWK has higher volatility (4.93%) compared to XLG (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWK dropped -56.49% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, RWK or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 17.41% vs 12.83% for RWK. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, XLG has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWK or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.41% return vs 12.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWK or XLG?

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

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

RWK has the higher dividend yield at 1.12%, compared with 0.59% for XLG.

What is the main difference between RWK and XLG?

RWK is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. RWK tracks S&P MidCap 400 Revenue-Weighted Index, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWK and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.82), 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.