PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RWL vs. IVV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RWL vs. IVV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWL achieves a 16.93% return, which is significantly higher than IVV's 11.75% return. Over the past 10 years, RWL has underperformed IVV with an annualized return of 14.13%, while IVV has yielded a comparatively higher 15.14% annualized return.


RWL

1D
0.96%
1M
2.74%
6M
12.64%
YTD
16.93%
1Y
31.97%
3Y*
19.45%
5Y*
14.12%
10Y*
14.13%
ALL TIME*
11.36%

IVV

1D
1.47%
1M
1.72%
6M
9.57%
YTD
11.75%
1Y
23.34%
3Y*
20.85%
5Y*
13.13%
10Y*
15.14%
ALL TIME*
8.51%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$3.33B$3.25B$5.92B
$37.86M$36.42M$32.49M

RWL vs. IVV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RWL
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF
16.93%18.65%16.45%17.43%-6.00%30.29%9.14%27.83%-7.74%20.34%
IVV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
11.75%17.85%24.93%26.31%-18.16%28.76%18.40%31.07%-4.49%21.75%

Correlation

The correlation between RWL and IVV is 0.68, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.68

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.77

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.85

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2008

0.91

Over the past year, the correlation between RWL and IVV has dropped to 0.68 - well below their long-term average of 0.91, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RWL vs. IVV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RWL
IVV

Healthcare

19.3%
9.4%

Financial Services

15.4%
12.5%

Technology

13.8%
37.2%

Consumer Cyclical

12.4%
8.9%

Consumer Defensive

10.7%
4.8%

Industrials

9.5%
7.9%

Communication Services

7.5%
9.6%

Energy

5.9%
3.3%

Utilities

2.6%
2.6%

Basic Materials

2.0%
1.8%

Real Estate

0.9%
1.9%

Healthcare

RWL
19.3%
IVV
9.4%

Financial Services

RWL
15.4%
IVV
12.5%

Technology

RWL
13.8%
IVV
37.2%

Consumer Cyclical

RWL
12.4%
IVV
8.9%

Consumer Defensive

RWL
10.7%
IVV
4.8%

Industrials

RWL
9.5%
IVV
7.9%

Communication Services

RWL
7.5%
IVV
9.6%

Energy

RWL
5.9%
IVV
3.3%

Utilities

RWL
2.6%
IVV
2.6%

Basic Materials

RWL
2.0%
IVV
1.8%

Real Estate

RWL
0.9%
IVV
1.9%

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. IVV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RWL
RWL Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 9595
Martin Ratio Rank

IVV
IVV Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
IVV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IVV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
IVV Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
IVV Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
IVV Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RWL vs. IVV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV). 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.


RWLIVVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.42

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.96

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.59

1.33

+0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.84

2.64

+2.20

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

21.03

11.23

+9.80

RWL vs. IVV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWL Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is higher than the IVV Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWL and IVV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RWL vs. IVV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWL drawdown since its inception was -54.83%, roughly equal to the maximum IVV drawdown of -55.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWL and IVV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RWLIVVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-54.83%

-55.25%

+0.42%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.64%

-8.89%

+2.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.39%

-18.75%

+4.36%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.49%

-24.53%

+7.04%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.04%

-33.90%

-2.14%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.39%

-10.72%

+4.33%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.52%

2.08%

-0.56%

Volatility

RWL vs. IVV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is 2.67%, while iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) has a volatility of 3.81%. This indicates that RWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IVV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RWLIVVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.67%

3.81%

-1.14%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.24%

10.27%

-3.03%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.91%

12.87%

-2.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.47%

17.03%

-2.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.81%

18.07%

-1.26%

RWL vs. IVV - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWL has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than IVV's 0.03% expense ratio.


Dividends

RWL vs. IVV - Dividend Comparison

RWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%, more than IVV's 1.08% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IVV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
1.08%1.17%1.30%1.44%1.66%1.20%1.57%1.85%2.21%1.75%2.01%2.27%
RWL
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF
1.21%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 IVV have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IVV has higher volatility (3.81%) compared to RWL (2.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWL dropped -54.83% vs IVV's -55.25%.

On 10-year performance, IVV leads with 15.14% vs 14.13% for RWL. On fees, IVV is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 2.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IVV has performed better with a 15.14% return vs 14.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IVV is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for RWL.

RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 1.08% for IVV.

RWL tracks S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while IVV tracks S&P 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWL and 0.03% for IVV.

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RWL and IVV

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