RWL vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both S&P 500 funds from Invesco - RWL tracks the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index while XLG tracks the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RWL returned 13.96%/yr vs 17.27%/yr for XLG. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RWL charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

RWL vs. XLG - 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 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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 higher than XLG's 7.57% return. Over the past 10 years, RWL has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 13.96%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 17.27% 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%

XLG

• 1D: -1.15%
• 1M: 4.22%
• YTD: 7.57%
• 6M: 7.32%
• 1Y: 28.54%
• 3Y*: 24.46%
• 5Y*: 16.24%
• 10Y*: 17.27%

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

RWL vs. XLG - 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%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	7.57%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between RWL and XLG is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2008	0.83

Over the past year, the correlation between RWL and XLG has dropped to 0.55 - well below their long-term average of 0.83, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RWL vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWL	XLG
Healthcare	19.5%	7.0%
Financial Services	15.4%	9.6%
Technology	13.7%	43.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	11.3%
Consumer Defensive	11.1%	5.8%
Industrials	8.6%	1.9%
Communication Services	7.5%	17.1%
Energy	6.6%	2.7%
Utilities	2.4%	-
Basic Materials	2.1%	0.6%
Real Estate	0.9%	-

Return for Risk

RWL vs. XLG — 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

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 56
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 61
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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. XLG - 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 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.69	2.15	+0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.76	2.92	+0.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.38	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.05	2.31	+1.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.12	8.66	+8.45
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. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWL and XLG, 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	XLG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.69	2.15	+0.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89	0.87	+0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83	0.92	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.62	-0.05

Drawdowns

RWL vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWL drawdown since its inception was -54.83%, roughly equal to the maximum XLG drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWL and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWL	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-54.83%	-52.39%	-2.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.64%	-12.41%	+5.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.39%	-20.70%	+6.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.49%	-28.02%	+10.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.04%	-30.46%	-5.58%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.57%	-1.44%	+0.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.45%	-7.64%	+1.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.57%	3.30%	-1.73%

Volatility

RWL vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is 2.12%, while Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 3.19%. This indicates that RWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWL	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.12%	3.19%	-1.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.12%	9.80%	-2.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.00%	13.33%	-3.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.50%	18.68%	-4.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.86%	18.84%	-1.98%

RWL vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWL has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWL vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

RWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.25%, more than XLG's 0.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.60%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWL and XLG in my portfolio?

RWL and XLG have a correlation of 0.55, 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 XLG?

XLG has higher volatility (3.19%) compared to RWL (2.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWL dropped -54.83% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, RWL or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 17.27% vs 13.96% for RWL. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% 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 XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.27% return vs 13.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWL or XLG?

XLG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for RWL.

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

RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.25%, compared with 0.60% for XLG.

What is the main difference between RWL and XLG?

RWL tracks S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RWL and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.69 vs 2.15), 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.