RZG vs. XMHQ

Last updated Jun 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 Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RZG returned 9.65%/yr vs 12.83%/yr for XMHQ. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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 18.15% return, which is significantly higher than XMHQ's 9.49% return. Over the past 10 years, RZG has underperformed XMHQ with an annualized return of 9.65%, while XMHQ has yielded a comparatively higher 12.83% 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%

XMHQ

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 4.20%
• YTD: 9.49%
• 6M: 9.51%
• 1Y: 14.33%
• 3Y*: 16.56%
• 5Y*: 9.37%
• 10Y*: 12.83%

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

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	18.15%	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	9.49%	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 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 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	22.0%	19.7%
Industrials	18.2%	25.8%
Technology	16.8%	12.1%
Financial Services	15.0%	15.1%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	9.7%
Real Estate	7.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	3.9%
Energy	3.0%	6.7%
Communication Services	1.9%	2.7%
Basic Materials	0.4%	4.8%
Utilities	0.4%	2.2%

Return for Risk

RZG vs. XMHQ — 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

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 28
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 24
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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. 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.

	RZG	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	0.93	+0.73
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	1.47	+1.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.17	+0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.58	1.63	+1.95
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.94	4.76	+7.18
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. XMHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZG Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is higher than the XMHQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.93. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RZG	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.66	0.93	+0.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.21	0.45	-0.24
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.39	0.62	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	0.45	-0.08

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	-1.92%	0.00%	-1.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.13%	-9.29%	-2.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.58%	3.02%	-0.44%

Volatility

RZG vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) have volatilities of 4.68% and 4.67%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	RZG	XMHQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.68%	4.67%	+0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.57%	11.09%	+2.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.57%	15.47%	+3.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.97%	20.74%	+2.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.64%	20.71%	+3.93%

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 0.42%, less than XMHQ's 0.55% 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%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.55%	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 0.85, 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 (4.68%) compared to XMHQ (4.67%). 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 12.83% vs 9.65% for RZG. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. Their volatility is very similar. 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 12.83% return vs 9.65%. 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 0.55%, compared with 0.42% for RZG.

What is the main difference between RZG and XMHQ?

RZG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while XMHQ is Mid Cap Blend Equities. RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth, while XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 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 (1.66 vs 0.93), 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.