RWL vs. OMFL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) and OMFL (Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while OMFL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Invesco Dynamic Multifactor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RWL returned 13.37%/yr vs 8.89%/yr for OMFL. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RWL charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for OMFL.

Performance

RWL vs. OMFL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWL achieves a 11.76% return, which is significantly higher than OMFL's 10.40% return.

RWL

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 11.76%
• 6M: 11.32%
• 1Y: 26.17%
• 3Y*: 19.58%
• 5Y*: 13.37%
• 10Y*: 14.32%

OMFL

• 1D: -1.45%
• 1M: -1.15%
• YTD: 10.40%
• 6M: 9.24%
• 1Y: 20.52%
• 3Y*: 13.20%
• 5Y*: 8.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

RWL vs. OMFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	11.76%	18.65%	16.45%	17.43%	-6.00%	30.29%	9.14%	27.83%	-7.74%	6.55%
OMFL Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF	10.40%	13.68%	6.82%	21.53%	-13.97%	28.95%	20.91%	35.58%	-2.55%	5.12%

Correlation

The correlation between RWL and OMFL is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 10, 2017	0.85

The correlation between RWL and OMFL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWL vs. OMFL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWL	OMFL
Healthcare	19.4%	9.9%
Technology	16.3%	34.5%
Financial Services	14.8%	11.0%
Consumer Cyclical	12.6%	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	10.2%	8.3%
Industrials	8.3%	9.2%
Communication Services	7.2%	11.2%
Energy	6.1%	3.3%
Utilities	2.2%	0.3%
Basic Materials	2.0%	2.4%
Real Estate	0.9%	0.8%

Return for Risk

RWL vs. OMFL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWL

RWL Risk / Return Rank: 83
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 84

OMFL

OMFL Risk / Return Rank: 55
OMFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
OMFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
OMFL Omega Ratio Rank: 49
OMFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
OMFL Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. OMFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFL). 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	OMFL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.58	1.65	+0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	2.30	+1.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.30	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.96	2.72	+1.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.57	12.06	+4.51

RWL vs. OMFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.58, which is higher than the OMFL Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWL and OMFL, 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. OMFL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWL drawdown since its inception was -54.83%, which is greater than OMFL's maximum drawdown of -33.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWL and OMFL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWL	OMFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-54.83%	-33.24%	-21.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.64%	-7.58%	+0.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.39%	-15.52%	+1.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.49%	-22.44%	+4.95%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.53%	-2.57%	+1.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.43%	-4.78%	-1.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.58%	1.71%	-0.13%

Volatility

RWL vs. OMFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is 3.16%, while Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFL) has a volatility of 4.33%. This indicates that RWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than OMFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWL	OMFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.16%	4.33%	-1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.43%	10.03%	-2.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.20%	12.54%	-2.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.51%	16.81%	-2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.84%	20.09%	-3.25%

RWL vs. OMFL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWL has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than OMFL's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWL vs. OMFL - Dividend Comparison

RWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.27%, more than OMFL's 0.83% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
OMFL Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF	0.83%	0.80%	1.22%	1.37%	1.55%	0.95%	1.48%	1.53%	1.39%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	1.27%	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 OMFL in my portfolio?

RWL and OMFL have a correlation of 0.77, 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 OMFL?

OMFL has higher volatility (4.33%) compared to RWL (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWL dropped -54.83% vs OMFL's -33.24%.

Which ETF is better, RWL or OMFL?

On 5-year performance, RWL leads with 13.37% vs 8.89% for OMFL. On fees, OMFL is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 3.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWL or OMFL?

Over the 5-year period, RWL has performed better with a 13.37% return vs 8.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWL or OMFL?

OMFL is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for RWL.

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

RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.27%, compared with 0.83% for OMFL.

What is the main difference between RWL and OMFL?

RWL is categorized as S&P 500, while OMFL is Large Cap Blend Equities. RWL tracks S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while OMFL tracks Russell 1000 Invesco Dynamic Multifactor Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWL and 0.29% for OMFL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.58 vs 1.65), 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.