RZG vs. SAWS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RZG (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF) and SAWS (AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. RZG is passively managed, while SAWS is actively managed. Over the past year, RZG returned 30.70% vs 19.24% for SAWS. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RZG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for SAWS.

Performance

RZG vs. SAWS - 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 AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS). 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 higher than SAWS's 11.45% 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%

SAWS

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 0.03%
• YTD: 11.45%
• 6M: 12.55%
• 1Y: 19.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RZG vs. SAWS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	18.15%	10.22%	-5.26%
SAWS AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF	11.45%	7.26%	3.52%

Correlation

The correlation between RZG and SAWS is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2024	0.90

The correlation between RZG and SAWS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

RZG vs. SAWS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RZG	SAWS
Healthcare	22.0%	18.3%
Industrials	18.2%	27.7%
Technology	16.8%	15.1%
Financial Services	15.0%	14.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	9.1%
Real Estate	7.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	7.5%
Energy	3.0%	4.6%
Communication Services	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	0.4%	3.6%
Utilities	0.4%	-

Return for Risk

RZG vs. SAWS — 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

SAWS

SAWS Risk / Return Rank: 34
SAWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
SAWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
SAWS Omega Ratio Rank: 29
SAWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
SAWS Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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. SAWS - 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 AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS). 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	SAWS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	1.07	+0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	1.67	+0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.19	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.58	1.89	+1.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.94	6.12	+5.82
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. SAWS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZG Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is higher than the SAWS Sharpe Ratio of 1.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZG and SAWS, 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	SAWS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.66	1.07	+0.60
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	0.59	-0.22

Drawdowns

RZG vs. SAWS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZG drawdown since its inception was -58.52%, which is greater than SAWS's maximum drawdown of -22.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZG and SAWS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RZG	SAWS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.52%	-22.04%	-36.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.63%	-10.23%	+1.60%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.92%	-2.52%	+0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.13%	-5.61%	-6.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.58%	3.15%	-0.57%

Volatility

RZG vs. SAWS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) is 4.68%, while AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS) has a volatility of 5.16%. This indicates that RZG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SAWS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RZG	SAWS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.68%	5.16%	-0.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.57%	13.70%	-0.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.57%	18.14%	+0.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.97%	21.03%	+1.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.64%	21.03%	+3.61%

RZG vs. SAWS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RZG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than SAWS's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

RZG vs. SAWS - Dividend Comparison

RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, more than SAWS's 0.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
SAWS AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF	0.02%	0.02%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RZG and SAWS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, RZG and SAWS 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 SAWS?

SAWS has higher volatility (5.16%) compared to RZG (4.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZG dropped -58.52% vs SAWS's -22.04%.

Which ETF is better, RZG or SAWS?

On 1-year performance, RZG leads with 30.70% vs 19.24% for SAWS. 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 SAWS?

Over the 1-year period, RZG has performed better with a 30.70% return vs 19.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RZG or SAWS?

RZG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for SAWS.

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

RZG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.02% for SAWS.

What is the main difference between RZG and SAWS?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and AAM. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZG and 0.55% for SAWS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RZG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 1.07), 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.