RZV vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RZV (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RZV is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Value, while XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RZV returned 10.50%/yr vs 17.28%/yr for XLG. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RZV charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

RZV vs. XLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RZV achieves a 19.32% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 8.03% return. Over the past 10 years, RZV has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 10.50%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 17.28% annualized return.

RZV

• 1D: 1.31%
• 1M: 3.43%
• YTD: 19.32%
• 6M: 17.69%
• 1Y: 45.33%
• 3Y*: 19.15%
• 5Y*: 9.13%
• 10Y*: 10.50%

XLG

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: 4.19%
• YTD: 8.03%
• 6M: 7.64%
• 1Y: 28.88%
• 3Y*: 24.70%
• 5Y*: 16.34%
• 10Y*: 17.28%

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

RZV vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RZV Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF	19.32%	8.65%	5.06%	22.97%	-6.80%	45.95%	-3.88%	22.29%	-19.66%	1.25%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	8.03%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between RZV and XLG is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.54
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2006	0.64

Over the past year, the correlation between RZV and XLG has dropped to 0.42 - well below their long-term average of 0.64, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RZV vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RZV	XLG
Consumer Cyclical	26.1%	11.3%
Industrials	15.7%	1.9%
Energy	9.7%	2.7%
Technology	8.9%	43.9%
Healthcare	8.8%	7.0%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	5.8%
Financial Services	7.3%	9.6%
Basic Materials	6.4%	0.6%
Real Estate	5.0%	-
Communication Services	4.2%	17.1%
Utilities	0.4%	-

Return for Risk

RZV vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RZV

RZV Risk / Return Rank: 68
RZV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
RZV Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
RZV Omega Ratio Rank: 62
RZV Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
RZV Martin Ratio Rank: 66

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 60
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

RZV vs. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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.

	RZV	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	2.18	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	2.95	+0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.38	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.63	2.34	+1.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.80	8.77	+3.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RZV vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZV Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZV and XLG, 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

	RZV	XLG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.21	2.18	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38	0.88	-0.50
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.39	0.92	-0.53
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.27	0.63	-0.35

Drawdowns

RZV vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZV drawdown since its inception was -77.11%, which is greater than XLG's maximum drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZV and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RZV	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-77.11%	-52.39%	-24.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.56%	-12.41%	-0.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.81%	-20.70%	-9.11%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.81%	-28.02%	-1.79%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-60.42%	-30.46%	-29.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.02%	+1.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.60%	-7.64%	-5.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.85%	3.30%	+0.55%

Volatility

RZV vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV) has a higher volatility of 5.27% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) at 3.19%. This indicates that RZV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RZV	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.27%	3.19%	+2.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.71%	9.81%	+3.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.67%	13.32%	+7.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.37%	18.68%	+5.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.03%	18.84%	+8.19%

RZV vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RZV has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

RZV vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

RZV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, more than XLG's 0.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RZV Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF	1.33%	1.59%	1.14%	1.13%	1.43%	0.86%	0.63%	1.03%	2.03%	1.02%	0.46%	1.24%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.60%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RZV and XLG in my portfolio?

RZV and XLG have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RZV or XLG?

RZV has higher volatility (5.27%) compared to XLG (3.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZV dropped -77.11% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, RZV or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 17.28% vs 10.50% for RZV. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, XLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RZV or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.28% return vs 10.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RZV or XLG?

XLG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RZV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RZV or XLG?

RZV has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.60% for XLG.

What is the main difference between RZV and XLG?

RZV is categorized as Small Cap Value Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. RZV tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Value, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RZV and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RZV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 2.18), 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.