RZG vs. XMHQ

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RZG (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF) and XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RZG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth, while XMHQ is a Quality Factor fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RZG returned 9.98%/yr vs 12.81%/yr for XMHQ. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RZG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for XMHQ.

Performance

RZG vs. XMHQ - 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 Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RZG achieves a 28.77% return, which is significantly higher than XMHQ's 13.81% return. Over the past 10 years, RZG has underperformed XMHQ with an annualized return of 9.98%, while XMHQ has yielded a comparatively higher 12.81% annualized return.

RZG

• 1D: 1.96%
• 1M: -2.46%
• 6M: 20.37%
• YTD: 28.77%
• 1Y: 39.31%
• 3Y*: 18.12%
• 5Y*: 6.22%
• 10Y*: 9.98%
• ALL TIME*: 9.31%

XMHQ

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: 2.55%
• 6M: 8.92%
• YTD: 13.81%
• 1Y: 17.48%
• 3Y*: 14.23%
• 5Y*: 10.44%
• 10Y*: 12.81%
• ALL TIME*: 9.54%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	$1.14M	$1.62M	$1.03M
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	$19.09M	$19.28M	$20.51M

RZG vs. XMHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	28.77%	10.22%	9.84%	19.15%	-29.00%	21.01%	17.76%	14.25%	-8.70%	19.18%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	13.81%	4.71%	16.79%	29.51%	-12.42%	20.98%	26.61%	27.18%	-9.08%	15.64%

Correlation

The correlation between RZG and XMHQ is 0.82, 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.	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2006	0.77

The correlation between RZG and XMHQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.77 (all time) to 0.89 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RZG vs. XMHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RZG	XMHQ
Healthcare	25.1%	16.0%
Technology	17.3%	18.5%
Industrials	16.4%	30.2%
Financial Services	15.1%	15.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	9.4%
Real Estate	6.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.6%	1.1%
Energy	2.4%	6.9%
Communication Services	1.7%	1.4%
Basic Materials	0.4%	1.5%
Utilities	0.4%	2.2%

Return for Risk

RZG vs. XMHQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

RZG

RZG Risk / Return Rank: 86
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 78
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 89

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 48
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 42
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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. XMHQ - 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 Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). 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	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	1.16	+0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	1.76	+1.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.20	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.58	1.98	+2.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.18	5.90	+8.28

RZG vs. XMHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZG Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is higher than the XMHQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZG and XMHQ, 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. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZG drawdown since its inception was -58.52%, roughly equal to the maximum XMHQ drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZG and XMHQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	RZG	XMHQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.52%	-58.19%	-0.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.63%	-8.85%	+0.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.73%	-24.56%	-1.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.33%	-25.47%	-12.86%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-54.02%	-36.90%	-17.12%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.99%	0.00%	-3.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.04%	-9.22%	-2.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.78%	2.97%	-0.19%

Volatility

RZG vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) has a higher volatility of 6.10% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) at 3.28%. This indicates that RZG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RZG	XMHQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.10%	3.28%	+2.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.80%	11.03%	+3.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.32%	15.18%	+4.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.05%	20.58%	+2.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.66%	20.64%	+4.02%

RZG vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

RZG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XMHQ's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

RZG vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison

RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.44%, less than XMHQ's 0.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.56%	0.64%	5.20%	0.73%	1.72%	1.00%	1.12%	1.22%	1.59%	1.06%	1.63%	1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RZG and XMHQ in my portfolio?

RZG and XMHQ have a correlation of 0.82, 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 XMHQ?

RZG has higher volatility (6.10%) compared to XMHQ (3.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZG dropped -58.52% vs XMHQ's -58.19%.

Which ETF is better, RZG or XMHQ?

On 10-year performance, XMHQ leads with 12.81% vs 9.98% for RZG. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RZG or XMHQ?

Over the 10-year period, XMHQ has performed better with a 12.81% return vs 9.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RZG or XMHQ?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RZG.

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

XMHQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.44% for RZG.

What is the main difference between RZG and XMHQ?

RZG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while XMHQ is Quality Factor. RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth, while XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZG and 0.25% for XMHQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RZG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.16), 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.