PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RZG vs. ISCG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RZG vs. ISCG - 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 Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RZG achieves a 31.95% return, which is significantly higher than ISCG's 18.02% return. Over the past 10 years, RZG has underperformed ISCG with an annualized return of 10.25%, while ISCG has yielded a comparatively higher 11.23% annualized return.


RZG

1D
2.48%
1M
-0.04%
6M
24.01%
YTD
31.95%
1Y
40.91%
3Y*
19.09%
5Y*
6.47%
10Y*
10.25%
ALL TIME*
9.44%

ISCG

1D
2.38%
1M
1.05%
6M
13.60%
YTD
18.02%
1Y
29.05%
3Y*
16.58%
5Y*
6.03%
10Y*
11.23%
ALL TIME*
9.64%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$1.31M$1.50M$1.83M
$1.33M$1.65M$1.06M

RZG vs. ISCG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
31.95%10.22%9.84%19.15%-29.00%21.01%17.76%14.25%-8.70%19.18%
ISCG
iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF
18.02%12.88%13.35%23.13%-26.75%-1.26%43.41%27.66%-6.91%24.68%

Correlation

The correlation between RZG and ISCG is 0.90, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.90

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.91

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.92

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.89

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2006

0.86

The correlation between RZG and ISCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

RZG vs. ISCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RZG
ISCG

Healthcare

25.1%
18.3%

Technology

17.3%
21.8%

Industrials

16.4%
22.2%

Financial Services

15.1%
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

9.1%
8.4%

Real Estate

6.8%
5.4%

Consumer Defensive

5.6%
2.6%

Energy

2.4%
3.1%

Communication Services

1.7%
2.8%

Basic Materials

0.4%
4.3%

Utilities

0.4%
1.0%

Healthcare

RZG
25.1%
ISCG
18.3%

Technology

RZG
17.3%
ISCG
21.8%

Industrials

RZG
16.4%
ISCG
22.2%

Financial Services

RZG
15.1%
ISCG
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

RZG
9.1%
ISCG
8.4%

Real Estate

RZG
6.8%
ISCG
5.4%

Consumer Defensive

RZG
5.6%
ISCG
2.6%

Energy

RZG
2.4%
ISCG
3.1%

Communication Services

RZG
1.7%
ISCG
2.8%

Basic Materials

RZG
0.4%
ISCG
4.3%

Utilities

RZG
0.4%
ISCG
1.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

RZG vs. ISCG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RZG
RZG Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank

ISCG
ISCG Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
ISCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ISCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
ISCG Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
ISCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
ISCG Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RZG vs. ISCG - 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 Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG). 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.


RZGISCGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.55

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.88

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.27

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.77

2.55

+2.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.75

9.21

+5.53

RZG vs. ISCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZG Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is higher than the ISCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZG and ISCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RZG vs. ISCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZG drawdown since its inception was -58.52%, roughly equal to the maximum ISCG drawdown of -57.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZG and ISCG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RZGISCGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.52%

-57.72%

-0.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.63%

-11.43%

+2.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.73%

-26.71%

+0.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.33%

-37.80%

-0.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-54.02%

-41.48%

-12.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.62%

-0.43%

-1.19%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.04%

-11.56%

-0.48%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.78%

3.16%

-0.38%

Volatility

RZG vs. ISCG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) has a higher volatility of 6.56% compared to iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) at 5.19%. This indicates that RZG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RZGISCGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.56%

5.19%

+1.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.93%

13.87%

+1.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.42%

18.71%

+0.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

23.07%

23.01%

+0.06%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.67%

23.16%

+1.51%

RZG vs. ISCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RZG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCG's 0.06% expense ratio.


Dividends

RZG vs. ISCG - Dividend Comparison

RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.43%, less than ISCG's 0.57% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ISCG
iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF
0.57%0.61%0.84%0.77%0.92%0.62%0.10%0.27%0.40%0.52%1.19%0.64%
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
0.43%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


RZG and ISCG have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RZG has higher volatility (6.56%) compared to ISCG (5.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZG dropped -58.52% vs ISCG's -57.72%.

On 10-year performance, ISCG leads with 11.23% vs 10.25% for RZG. On fees, ISCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, ISCG has been the lower-risk option at 5.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ISCG has performed better with a 11.23% return vs 10.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ISCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RZG.

ISCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.57%, compared with 0.43% for RZG.

RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth, while ISCG tracks Morningstar US Small Cap Broad Growth Extended Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZG and 0.06% for ISCG.

RZG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 1.57), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RZG and ISCG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer