RWL vs. GSG
RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) and GSG (iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - RWL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while GSG is a Commodities fund tracking the S&P GSCI Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWL returned 14.21%/yr vs 8.03%/yr for GSG. Their 0.34 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. RWL charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GSG.
Performance
RWL vs. GSG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RWL achieves a 17.78% return, which is significantly lower than GSG's 32.52% return. Over the past 10 years, RWL has outperformed GSG with an annualized return of 14.21%, while GSG has yielded a comparatively lower 8.03% annualized return.
RWL
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 3.29%
- 6M
- 12.79%
- YTD
- 17.78%
- 1Y
- 31.27%
- 3Y*
- 19.74%
- 5Y*
- 14.16%
- 10Y*
- 14.21%
- ALL TIME*
- 11.40%
GSG
- 1D
- 0.36%
- 1M
- 5.78%
- 6M
- 21.95%
- YTD
- 32.52%
- 1Y
- 37.47%
- 3Y*
- 12.51%
- 5Y*
- 14.20%
- 10Y*
- 8.03%
- ALL TIME*
- -2.36%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $18.96M | $16.42M | $22.87M | |
| $41.49M | $35.69M | $32.90M |
RWL vs. GSG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF | 17.78% | 18.65% | 16.45% | 17.43% | -6.00% | 30.29% | 9.14% | 27.83% | -7.74% | 20.34% |
GSG iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust | 32.52% | 5.93% | 8.52% | -5.51% | 24.08% | 38.77% | -23.94% | 15.62% | -13.88% | 3.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between RWL and GSG is -0.19, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.19 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.02 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.18 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.26 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2008 | 0.34 |
The correlation between RWL and GSG shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.34 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
RWL vs. GSG — Risk / Return Rank
RWL
GSG
RWL vs. GSG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). 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.
| RWL | GSG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.58 | 1.27 | +0.31 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.73 | 2.00 | +2.73 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 20.57 | 6.32 | +14.25 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RWL vs. GSG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RWL drawdown since its inception was -54.83%, smaller than the maximum GSG drawdown of -89.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWL and GSG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RWL | GSG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -54.83% | -89.62% | +34.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.64% | -18.81% | +12.17% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.39% | -18.81% | +4.42% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.49% | -29.12% | +11.63% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.04% | -57.64% | +21.60% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.05% | -59.99% | +59.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.39% | -63.67% | +57.28% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.52% | 5.94% | -4.42% |
Volatility
RWL vs. GSG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is 2.75%, while iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG) has a volatility of 8.99%. This indicates that RWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GSG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RWL | GSG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.75% | 8.99% | -6.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.24% | 21.89% | -14.65% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.88% | 24.44% | -14.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.46% | 22.90% | -8.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.80% | 22.08% | -5.28% |
RWL vs. GSG - Expense Ratio Comparison
RWL has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than GSG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
RWL vs. GSG - Dividend Comparison
RWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, while GSG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GSG iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF | 1.20% | 1.35% | 1.43% | 1.60% | 1.62% | 1.35% | 1.75% | 1.87% | 1.99% | 1.60% | 1.71% | 1.97% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RWL and GSG have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GSG has higher volatility (8.99%) compared to RWL (2.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWL dropped -54.83% vs GSG's -89.62%.
On 10-year performance, RWL leads with 14.21% vs 8.03% for GSG. On fees, RWL is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 2.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, RWL has performed better with a 14.21% return vs 8.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RWL is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GSG.
RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.20%, compared with 0.00% for GSG.
RWL is categorized as S&P 500, while GSG is Commodities. RWL tracks S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while GSG tracks S&P GSCI Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWL and 0.75% for GSG.
RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.18 vs 1.54), 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.
Find the right allocation for RWL and GSG
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