RZG vs. CAFG

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

RZG (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF) and CAFG (Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds - RZG tracks the S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth while CAFG tracks the Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RZG returned 20.79%/yr vs 15.41%/yr for CAFG. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RZG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for CAFG.

Performance

RZG vs. CAFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) and Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with RZG having a 28.86% return and CAFG slightly higher at 29.11%.

RZG

• 1D: 1.10%
• 1M: 9.84%
• YTD: 28.86%
• 6M: 24.63%
• 1Y: 40.41%
• 3Y*: 20.79%
• 5Y*: 6.19%
• 10Y*: 11.02%

CAFG

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 3.89%
• YTD: 29.11%
• 6M: 26.19%
• 1Y: 34.97%
• 3Y*: 15.41%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RZG vs. CAFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	28.86%	10.22%	9.84%	19.22%
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	29.11%	0.17%	6.95%	21.26%

Correlation

The correlation between RZG and CAFG is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2023	0.91

The correlation between RZG and CAFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

RZG vs. CAFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RZG	CAFG
Healthcare	22.7%	24.5%
Technology	18.4%	35.1%
Industrials	16.8%	15.0%
Financial Services	15.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	7.2%
Real Estate	5.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.4%	2.7%
Communication Services	3.5%	2.9%
Energy	2.7%	8.9%
Basic Materials	0.4%	2.4%
Utilities	0.4%	1.1%

Return for Risk

RZG vs. CAFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RZG

RZG Risk / Return Rank: 80
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 69
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 86

CAFG

CAFG Risk / Return Rank: 75
CAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
CAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
CAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
CAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

RZG vs. CAFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) and Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG). 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.

	RZG	CAFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	2.00	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	2.83	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.34	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.71	4.32	+0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.91	14.23	+1.68

RZG vs. CAFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZG Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the CAFG Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZG and CAFG, 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

RZG vs. CAFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZG drawdown since its inception was -58.52%, which is greater than CAFG's maximum drawdown of -23.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZG and CAFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RZG	CAFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.52%	-23.66%	-34.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.63%	-8.13%	-0.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.73%	-23.66%	-2.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.33%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-54.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.09%	-5.44%	-6.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.55%	2.46%	+0.09%

Volatility

RZG vs. CAFG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) has a higher volatility of 5.47% compared to Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) at 4.97%. This indicates that RZG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RZG	CAFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.47%	4.97%	+0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.17%	13.18%	+0.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.97%	17.60%	+1.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.04%	19.53%	+3.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.65%	19.53%	+5.12%

RZG vs. CAFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RZG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than CAFG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

RZG vs. CAFG - Dividend Comparison

RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.44%, more than CAFG's 0.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.31%	0.35%	0.36%	0.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	0.44%	0.37%	0.95%	1.43%	1.59%	0.22%	0.49%	0.70%	0.46%	0.44%	0.65%	0.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RZG and CAFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, RZG and CAFG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, RZG or CAFG?

RZG has higher volatility (5.47%) compared to CAFG (4.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZG dropped -58.52% vs CAFG's -23.66%.

Which ETF is better, RZG or CAFG?

On 3-year performance, RZG leads with 20.79% vs 15.41% for CAFG. On fees, RZG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CAFG has been the lower-risk option at 4.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RZG or CAFG?

Over the 3-year period, RZG has performed better with a 20.79% return vs 15.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RZG or CAFG?

RZG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for CAFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RZG or CAFG?

RZG has the higher dividend yield at 0.44%, compared with 0.31% for CAFG.

What is the main difference between RZG and CAFG?

RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth, while CAFG tracks Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZG and 0.59% for CAFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RZG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 2.00), 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.