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

Performance

RZV vs. XSMO - 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 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, RZV achieves a 28.27% return, which is significantly higher than XSMO's 23.06% return. Over the past 10 years, RZV has underperformed XSMO with an annualized return of 10.83%, while XSMO has yielded a comparatively higher 13.99% annualized return.


RZV

1D
1.82%
1M
2.39%
6M
16.91%
YTD
28.27%
1Y
48.09%
3Y*
16.77%
5Y*
12.95%
10Y*
10.83%
ALL TIME*
8.35%

XSMO

1D
1.83%
1M
-2.32%
6M
14.64%
YTD
23.06%
1Y
32.48%
3Y*
21.57%
5Y*
11.89%
10Y*
13.99%
ALL TIME*
9.18%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$1.90M$1.80M$1.00M
$21.74M$21.64M$21.28M

RZV vs. XSMO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RZV
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF
28.27%8.65%5.06%22.97%-6.80%45.95%-3.88%22.29%-19.66%1.25%
XSMO
Invesco S&P SmallCap Momentum ETF
23.06%9.80%17.45%21.55%-15.44%19.24%21.96%28.65%-3.44%23.95%

Correlation

The correlation between RZV and XSMO is 0.72, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.72

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.79

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.84

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2006

0.79

The correlation between RZV and XSMO shifts across timeframes, from 0.72 (1 year) to 0.84 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RZV vs. XSMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RZV
XSMO

Consumer Cyclical

23.9%
9.0%

Industrials

15.7%
19.8%

Technology

12.1%
17.8%

Consumer Defensive

10.4%
2.5%

Healthcare

8.8%
16.9%

Financial Services

7.7%
13.4%

Energy

7.4%
2.7%

Basic Materials

5.7%
6.0%

Real Estate

4.6%
4.6%

Communication Services

3.4%
4.0%

Utilities

0.4%
3.4%

Consumer Cyclical

RZV
23.9%
XSMO
9.0%

Industrials

RZV
15.7%
XSMO
19.8%

Technology

RZV
12.1%
XSMO
17.8%

Consumer Defensive

RZV
10.4%
XSMO
2.5%

Healthcare

RZV
8.8%
XSMO
16.9%

Financial Services

RZV
7.7%
XSMO
13.4%

Energy

RZV
7.4%
XSMO
2.7%

Basic Materials

RZV
5.7%
XSMO
6.0%

Real Estate

RZV
4.6%
XSMO
4.6%

Communication Services

RZV
3.4%
XSMO
4.0%

Utilities

RZV
0.4%
XSMO
3.4%

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

RZV vs. XSMO — Risk / Return Rank

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

RZV
RZV Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
RZV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RZV Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
RZV Omega Ratio Rank: 8888
Omega Ratio Rank
RZV Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
RZV Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank

XSMO
XSMO Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
XSMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XSMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
XSMO Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
XSMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
XSMO Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RZV vs. XSMO - 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 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.

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.


RZVXSMODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.77

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.95

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.28

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.85

3.46

+0.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.98

10.41

+2.58

RZV vs. XSMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RZV Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is higher than the XSMO Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RZV 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...

Drawdowns

RZV vs. XSMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RZV drawdown since its inception was -77.11%, which is greater than XSMO's maximum drawdown of -58.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RZV and XSMO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RZVXSMODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-77.11%

-58.06%

-19.05%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.56%

-9.44%

-3.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.81%

-24.76%

-5.05%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.81%

-29.62%

-0.19%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-60.42%

-39.39%

-21.03%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.97%

-5.64%

+4.67%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.50%

-11.07%

-2.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.71%

3.13%

+0.58%

Volatility

RZV vs. XSMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV) is 5.09%, while Invesco S&P SmallCap Momentum ETF (XSMO) has a volatility of 5.83%. This indicates that RZV 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


RZVXSMODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.09%

5.83%

-0.74%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.81%

15.67%

-1.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.11%

19.96%

+0.15%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.09%

22.60%

+1.49%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.89%

24.15%

+2.74%

RZV vs. XSMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

RZV vs. XSMO - Dividend Comparison

RZV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, more than XSMO's 0.54% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RZV
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF
1.37%1.59%1.14%1.13%1.43%0.86%0.63%1.03%2.03%1.02%0.46%1.24%
XSMO
Invesco S&P SmallCap Momentum ETF
0.54%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


RZV and XSMO have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XSMO has higher volatility (5.83%) compared to RZV (5.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RZV dropped -77.11% vs XSMO's -58.06%.

On 10-year performance, XSMO leads with 13.99% vs 10.83% for RZV. On fees, RZV is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RZV has been the lower-risk option at 5.09%. 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 13.99% return vs 10.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RZV is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for XSMO.

RZV has the higher dividend yield at 1.37%, compared with 0.54% for XSMO.

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

RZV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 1.64), 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 RZV 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