RWL vs. MSTZ

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) and MSTZ (T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while MSTZ is a Inverse Equities fund actively managed by REX. RWL is passively managed, while MSTZ is actively managed. Over the past year, RWL returned 25.91% vs 266.72% for MSTZ. At a correlation of -0.32, they often move in opposite directions. RWL charges 0.39%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for MSTZ.

Performance

RWL vs. MSTZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWL achieves a 14.62% return, which is significantly higher than MSTZ's -31.90% return.

RWL

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 1.42%
• 6M: 11.32%
• YTD: 14.62%
• 1Y: 25.91%
• 3Y*: 19.17%
• 5Y*: 13.76%
• 10Y*: 13.95%

MSTZ

• 1D: -11.25%
• 1M: 29.92%
• 6M: -7.52%
• YTD: -31.90%
• 1Y: 266.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RWL vs. MSTZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	14.62%	18.65%	1.59%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	-31.90%	-38.95%	-94.43%

Correlation

The correlation between RWL and MSTZ is -0.34, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	-0.32

Return for Risk

RWL vs. MSTZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWL

RWL Risk / Return Rank: 91
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 91
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 91

MSTZ

MSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 65
MSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
MSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
MSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 66
MSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
MSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

RWL vs. MSTZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). 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	MSTZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.60	1.81	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.59	2.41	+1.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.31	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.92	3.16	+0.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.53	6.14	+10.39

RWL vs. MSTZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.60, which is higher than the MSTZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWL and MSTZ, 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

RWL vs. MSTZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWL drawdown since its inception was -54.83%, smaller than the maximum MSTZ drawdown of -99.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWL and MSTZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWL	MSTZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-54.83%	-99.38%	+44.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.64%	-84.89%	+78.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.39%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.49%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-97.68%	+97.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.41%	-94.54%	+88.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.58%	43.66%	-42.08%

Volatility

RWL vs. MSTZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is 2.29%, while T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) has a volatility of 57.19%. This indicates that RWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWL	MSTZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.29%	57.19%	-54.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.21%	135.18%	-127.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.02%	148.74%	-138.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.50%	171.04%	-156.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.80%	171.04%	-154.24%

RWL vs. MSTZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWL has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTZ's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWL vs. MSTZ - Dividend Comparison

RWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, while MSTZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	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	1.23%	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

Can I hold both RWL and MSTZ in my portfolio?

RWL and MSTZ have a correlation of -0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RWL or MSTZ?

MSTZ has higher volatility (57.19%) compared to RWL (2.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWL dropped -54.83% vs MSTZ's -99.38%.

Which ETF is better, RWL or MSTZ?

On 1-year performance, MSTZ leads with 266.72% vs 25.91% for RWL. On fees, RWL is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 2.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWL or MSTZ?

Over the 1-year period, MSTZ has performed better with a 266.72% return vs 25.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWL or MSTZ?

RWL is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RWL or MSTZ?

RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.23%, compared with 0.00% for MSTZ.

What is the main difference between RWL and MSTZ?

RWL is categorized as S&P 500, while MSTZ is Inverse Equities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWL and 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs 1.81), 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.