RZG vs. RSMC
RZG (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF) and RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. RZG is passively managed, while RSMC is actively managed. Over the past year, RZG returned 30.70% vs 10.02% for RSMC. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RZG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RSMC.
Performance
RZG vs. RSMC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RZG achieves a 18.15% return, which is significantly higher than RSMC's 10.85% 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%
RSMC
- 1D
- -0.07%
- 1M
- 2.49%
- YTD
- 10.85%
- 6M
- 8.72%
- 1Y
- 10.02%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RZG vs. RSMC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF | 18.15% | 10.22% | -3.04% |
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF | 10.85% | -1.02% | 0.68% |
Correlation
The correlation between RZG and RSMC is 0.88, 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 | 0.88 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024 | 0.88 |
The correlation between RZG and RSMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. RSMC — Risk / Return Rank
RZG
RSMC
RZG vs. RSMC - 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 Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). 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 | RSMC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.53 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.11 | +0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.58 | 0.96 | +2.62 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.94 | 2.87 | +9.07 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RZG | RSMC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.66 | 0.59 | +1.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.21 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.39 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.37 | 0.31 | +0.06 |
Drawdowns
RZG vs. RSMC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RZG drawdown since its inception was -58.52%, which is greater than RSMC's maximum drawdown of -22.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZG and RSMC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RZG | RSMC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.52% | -22.33% | -36.19% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.63% | -10.49% | +1.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.73% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.33% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -54.02% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.92% | -2.03% | +0.11% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.13% | -5.26% | -6.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.58% | 3.50% | -0.92% |
Volatility
RZG vs. RSMC - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) and Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) have volatilities of 4.68% and 4.81%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RZG | RSMC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.68% | 4.81% | -0.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.57% | 12.36% | +1.21% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.57% | 17.16% | +1.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.97% | 20.38% | +2.59% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.64% | 20.38% | +4.26% |
RZG vs. RSMC - Expense Ratio Comparison
RZG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than RSMC's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
RZG vs. RSMC - Dividend Comparison
RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, while RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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 | 0.42% | 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
RZG and RSMC have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
RSMC has higher volatility (4.81%) compared to RZG (4.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZG dropped -58.52% vs RSMC's -22.33%.
On 1-year performance, RZG leads with 30.70% vs 10.02% for RSMC. 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.
Over the 1-year period, RZG has performed better with a 30.70% return vs 10.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RZG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RSMC.
RZG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.00% for RSMC.
They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Rockefeller. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZG and 0.75% for RSMC.
RZG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 0.59), 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.
Find the right allocation for RZG and RSMC
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