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

Performance

RZG vs. XSMO - 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 SmallCap Momentum ETF (XSMO). 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 20.35% return, which is significantly lower than XSMO's 23.45% return. Over the past 10 years, RZG has underperformed XSMO with an annualized return of 9.73%, while XSMO has yielded a comparatively higher 14.63% annualized return.


RZG

1D
1.87%
1M
0.23%
YTD
20.35%
6M
18.94%
1Y
33.26%
3Y*
18.48%
5Y*
5.24%
10Y*
9.73%

XSMO

1D
1.22%
1M
0.48%
YTD
23.45%
6M
21.12%
1Y
35.59%
3Y*
25.70%
5Y*
11.48%
10Y*
14.63%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RZG vs. XSMO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
20.35%10.22%9.84%19.15%-29.00%21.01%17.76%14.25%-8.70%19.18%
XSMO
Invesco S&P SmallCap Momentum ETF
23.45%9.80%17.45%21.55%-15.44%19.24%21.96%28.65%-3.44%23.95%

Correlation

The correlation between RZG and XSMO is 0.92, 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

0.92

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.94

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.93

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.91

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2006

0.85

The correlation between RZG and XSMO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

RZG vs. XSMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RZG
XSMO

Healthcare

22.0%
13.9%

Industrials

18.2%
19.5%

Technology

16.8%
20.9%

Financial Services

15.0%
12.3%

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
9.0%

Real Estate

7.6%
5.0%

Consumer Defensive

5.9%
2.4%

Energy

3.0%
3.1%

Communication Services

1.9%
4.1%

Basic Materials

0.4%
5.8%

Utilities

0.4%
4.0%

Healthcare

RZG
22.0%
XSMO
13.9%

Industrials

RZG
18.2%
XSMO
19.5%

Technology

RZG
16.8%
XSMO
20.9%

Financial Services

RZG
15.0%
XSMO
12.3%

Consumer Cyclical

RZG
8.8%
XSMO
9.0%

Real Estate

RZG
7.6%
XSMO
5.0%

Consumer Defensive

RZG
5.9%
XSMO
2.4%

Energy

RZG
3.0%
XSMO
3.1%

Communication Services

RZG
1.9%
XSMO
4.1%

Basic Materials

RZG
0.4%
XSMO
5.8%

Utilities

RZG
0.4%
XSMO
4.0%

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. XSMO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

RZG
RZG Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank

XSMO
XSMO Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
XSMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XSMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
XSMO Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
XSMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
XSMO Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
Martin Ratio Rank
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. XSMO - 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 SmallCap Momentum ETF (XSMO). 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.


RZGXSMODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.32

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.87

4.02

-0.15

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.94

13.74

-0.80

RZG vs. XSMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZG Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the XSMO Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZG and XSMO, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RZGXSMODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.79

1.91

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.23

0.51

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.40

0.61

-0.21

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.38

0.39

-0.02

Drawdowns

RZG vs. XSMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZG drawdown since its inception was -58.52%, roughly equal to the maximum XSMO drawdown of -58.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZG and XSMO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RZGXSMODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.52%

-58.06%

-0.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.63%

-8.89%

+0.26%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.73%

-24.76%

-0.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.33%

-29.62%

-8.71%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-54.02%

-39.39%

-14.63%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.09%

-0.52%

+0.43%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.12%

-11.13%

-0.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.58%

2.60%

-0.02%

Volatility

RZG vs. XSMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) is 4.80%, while Invesco S&P SmallCap Momentum ETF (XSMO) has a volatility of 6.12%. This indicates that RZG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XSMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RZGXSMODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.80%

6.12%

-1.32%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.68%

14.15%

-0.47%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.63%

18.76%

-0.13%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.99%

22.68%

+0.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.65%

24.12%

+0.53%

RZG vs. XSMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

RZG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than XSMO's 0.36% expense ratio.


Dividends

RZG vs. XSMO - Dividend Comparison

RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.41%, less than XSMO's 0.52% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
0.41%0.37%0.95%1.43%1.59%0.22%0.49%0.70%0.46%0.44%0.65%0.70%
XSMO
Invesco S&P SmallCap Momentum ETF
0.52%0.75%0.63%0.96%1.19%0.30%0.82%0.69%0.66%0.27%0.30%0.35%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.92, RZG and XSMO 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.

XSMO has higher volatility (6.12%) compared to RZG (4.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZG dropped -58.52% vs XSMO's -58.06%.

On 10-year performance, XSMO leads with 14.63% vs 9.73% for RZG. On fees, RZG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RZG has been the lower-risk option at 4.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XSMO has performed better with a 14.63% return vs 9.73%. 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 0.36% for XSMO.

XSMO has the higher dividend yield at 0.52%, compared with 0.41% for RZG.

RZG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while XSMO is Momentum. RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth, while XSMO tracks S&P SmallCap 600 Momentum Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZG and 0.36% for XSMO.

XSMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.79), 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 XSMO

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