RZG vs. COMT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RZG (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF) and COMT (iShares Commodities Select Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RZG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth, while COMT is a Commodities fund actively managed by iShares. RZG is passively managed, while COMT is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, RZG returned 9.65%/yr vs 9.09%/yr for COMT. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RZG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for COMT.

Performance

RZG vs. COMT - 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 iShares Commodities Select Strategy ETF (COMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RZG achieves a 18.15% return, which is significantly lower than COMT's 39.67% return. Over the past 10 years, RZG has outperformed COMT with an annualized return of 9.65%, while COMT has yielded a comparatively lower 9.09% annualized return.

RZG

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: -0.10%
• YTD: 18.15%
• 6M: 16.98%
• 1Y: 30.70%
• 3Y*: 17.12%
• 5Y*: 4.85%
• 10Y*: 9.65%

COMT

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: -4.35%
• YTD: 39.67%
• 6M: 39.06%
• 1Y: 47.51%
• 3Y*: 16.86%
• 5Y*: 13.50%
• 10Y*: 9.09%

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

RZG vs. COMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	18.15%	10.22%	9.84%	19.15%	-29.00%	21.01%	17.76%	14.25%	-8.70%	19.18%
COMT iShares Commodities Select Strategy ETF	39.67%	6.07%	5.96%	-6.56%	19.45%	36.88%	-18.66%	10.81%	-6.67%	11.70%

Correlation

The correlation between RZG and COMT is -0.22, 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	-0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2014	0.27

The correlation between RZG and COMT shifts across timeframes, from -0.22 (1 year) to 0.27 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RZG vs. COMT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RZG	COMT
Healthcare	22.0%	-
Industrials	18.2%	-
Technology	16.8%	-
Financial Services	15.0%	100.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	-
Real Estate	7.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	-
Energy	3.0%	-
Communication Services	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	0.4%	-
Utilities	0.4%	-

Return for Risk

RZG vs. COMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

RZG

RZG Risk / Return Rank: 56
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 45
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 65

COMT

COMT Risk / Return Rank: 71
COMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
COMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
COMT Omega Ratio Rank: 64
COMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
COMT Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. COMT - 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 iShares Commodities Select Strategy ETF (COMT). 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.

	RZG	COMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	2.24	-0.58
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	2.88	-0.40
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.40	-0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.58	5.95	-2.38
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.94	14.11	-2.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RZG vs. COMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZG Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the COMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZG and COMT, 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

	RZG	COMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.66	2.24	-0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.21	0.64	-0.43
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.39	0.48	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	0.20	+0.17

Drawdowns

RZG vs. COMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZG drawdown since its inception was -58.52%, which is greater than COMT's maximum drawdown of -51.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZG and COMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	RZG	COMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.52%	-51.89%	-6.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.63%	-8.02%	-0.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.73%	-13.31%	-12.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.33%	-29.00%	-9.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-54.02%	-39.22%	-14.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.92%	-4.82%	+2.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.13%	-24.07%	+11.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.58%	3.38%	-0.80%

Volatility

RZG vs. COMT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) is 4.68%, while iShares Commodities Select Strategy ETF (COMT) has a volatility of 7.37%. This indicates that RZG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RZG	COMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.68%	7.37%	-2.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.57%	18.80%	-5.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.57%	21.29%	-2.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.97%	21.06%	+1.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.64%	18.89%	+5.75%

RZG vs. COMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

RZG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than COMT's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

RZG vs. COMT - Dividend Comparison

RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than COMT's 5.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
COMT iShares Commodities Select Strategy ETF	5.54%	7.74%	4.90%	5.19%	29.79%	17.79%	0.36%	2.61%	11.65%	5.16%	0.52%	1.44%
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	0.42%	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 COMT in my portfolio?

RZG and COMT have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RZG or COMT?

COMT has higher volatility (7.37%) compared to RZG (4.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZG dropped -58.52% vs COMT's -51.89%.

Which ETF is better, RZG or COMT?

On 10-year performance, RZG leads with 9.65% vs 9.09% for COMT. On fees, RZG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RZG has been the lower-risk option at 4.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RZG or COMT?

Over the 10-year period, RZG has performed better with a 9.65% return vs 9.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RZG or COMT?

RZG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for COMT.

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

COMT has the higher dividend yield at 5.54%, compared with 0.42% for RZG.

What is the main difference between RZG and COMT?

RZG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while COMT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZG and 0.48% for COMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

COMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.66), 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.