RWL vs. RSPG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) and RSPG (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RWL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while RSPG is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy Plus Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWL returned 13.96%/yr vs 9.73%/yr for RSPG. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RWL charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for RSPG.

Performance

RWL vs. RSPG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RWL achieves a 11.07% return, which is significantly lower than RSPG's 34.27% return. Over the past 10 years, RWL has outperformed RSPG with an annualized return of 13.96%, while RSPG has yielded a comparatively lower 9.73% annualized return.

RWL

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: 3.13%
• YTD: 11.07%
• 6M: 11.66%
• 1Y: 26.76%
• 3Y*: 19.96%
• 5Y*: 12.89%
• 10Y*: 13.96%

RSPG

• 1D: 1.25%
• 1M: -2.65%
• YTD: 34.27%
• 6M: 28.95%
• 1Y: 47.49%
• 3Y*: 19.93%
• 5Y*: 21.10%
• 10Y*: 9.73%

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

RWL vs. RSPG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	11.07%	18.65%	16.45%	17.43%	-6.00%	30.29%	9.14%	27.83%	-7.74%	20.34%
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF	34.27%	7.01%	6.09%	4.49%	57.97%	57.73%	-32.44%	13.38%	-24.68%	-6.39%

Correlation

The correlation between RWL and RSPG is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2008	0.62

Over the past year, the correlation between RWL and RSPG has dropped to 0.18 - well below their long-term average of 0.62, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RWL vs. RSPG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWL	RSPG
Healthcare	19.5%	-
Financial Services	15.4%	0.0%
Technology	13.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	11.1%	-
Industrials	8.6%	-
Communication Services	7.5%	-
Energy	6.6%	100.0%
Utilities	2.4%	-
Basic Materials	2.1%	-
Real Estate	0.9%	-

Return for Risk

RWL vs. RSPG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWL

RWL Risk / Return Rank: 81
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 83

RSPG

RSPG Risk / Return Rank: 64
RSPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
RSPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
RSPG Omega Ratio Rank: 56
RSPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
RSPG Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. RSPG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG). 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.

	RWL	RSPG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.69	2.20	+0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.76	2.80	+0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.35	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.05	3.92	+0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.12	11.59	+5.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RWL vs. RSPG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is comparable to the RSPG Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWL and RSPG, 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

	RWL	RSPG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.69	2.20	+0.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89	0.75	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83	0.29	+0.54
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.18	+0.40

Drawdowns

RWL vs. RSPG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWL drawdown since its inception was -54.83%, smaller than the maximum RSPG drawdown of -79.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWL and RSPG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWL	RSPG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-54.83%	-79.98%	+25.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.64%	-12.18%	+5.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.39%	-23.06%	+8.67%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.49%	-28.44%	+10.95%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.04%	-73.17%	+37.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.57%	-5.67%	+5.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.45%	-25.47%	+19.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.57%	4.11%	-2.54%

Volatility

RWL vs. RSPG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is 2.12%, while Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG) has a volatility of 8.19%. This indicates that RWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RSPG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWL	RSPG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.12%	8.19%	-6.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.12%	16.77%	-9.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.00%	21.69%	-11.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.50%	28.31%	-13.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.86%	33.57%	-16.71%

RWL vs. RSPG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWL has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than RSPG's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWL vs. RSPG - Dividend Comparison

RWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.25%, less than RSPG's 1.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF	1.94%	2.60%	2.43%	2.84%	3.43%	2.37%	3.15%	2.15%	2.18%	2.55%	1.14%	2.80%
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	1.25%	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 RSPG in my portfolio?

RWL and RSPG have a correlation of 0.18, 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 RSPG?

RSPG has higher volatility (8.19%) compared to RWL (2.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWL dropped -54.83% vs RSPG's -79.98%.

Which ETF is better, RWL or RSPG?

On 10-year performance, RWL leads with 13.96% vs 9.73% for RSPG. On fees, RWL is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 2.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWL or RSPG?

Over the 10-year period, RWL has performed better with a 13.96% return vs 9.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWL or RSPG?

RWL is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPG.

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

RSPG has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 1.25% for RWL.

What is the main difference between RWL and RSPG?

RWL is categorized as S&P 500, while RSPG is Energy Equities. RWL tracks S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while RSPG tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy Plus Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWL and 0.40% for RSPG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.69 vs 2.20), 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.