SEIQ vs. RWL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SEIQ (SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF) and RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SEIQ is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by SEI, while RWL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index. SEIQ is actively managed, while RWL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, SEIQ returned 12.03%/yr vs 19.58%/yr for RWL. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SEIQ charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for RWL.

Performance

SEIQ vs. RWL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF (SEIQ) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SEIQ achieves a -0.13% return, which is significantly lower than RWL's 11.76% return.

SEIQ

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: -3.41%
• YTD: -0.13%
• 6M: -0.99%
• 1Y: 7.77%
• 3Y*: 12.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RWL

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 11.76%
• 6M: 11.32%
• 1Y: 26.17%
• 3Y*: 19.58%
• 5Y*: 13.37%
• 10Y*: 14.32%

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

SEIQ vs. RWL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
SEIQ SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF	-0.13%	12.51%	16.15%	22.66%	1.51%
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	11.76%	18.65%	16.45%	17.43%	-1.78%

Correlation

The correlation between SEIQ and RWL is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2022	0.80

The correlation between SEIQ and RWL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

SEIQ vs. RWL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SEIQ	RWL
Technology	41.4%	16.3%
Consumer Cyclical	15.0%	12.6%
Industrials	9.8%	8.3%
Consumer Defensive	9.1%	10.2%
Healthcare	8.8%	19.4%
Communication Services	8.2%	7.2%
Financial Services	7.8%	14.8%
Basic Materials	0.9%	2.0%
Energy	-	6.1%
Real Estate	-	0.9%
Utilities	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

SEIQ vs. RWL — Risk / Return Rank

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

SEIQ

SEIQ Risk / Return Rank: 21
SEIQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
SEIQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
SEIQ Omega Ratio Rank: 20
SEIQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
SEIQ Martin Ratio Rank: 25

RWL

RWL Risk / Return Rank: 83
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

SEIQ vs. RWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF (SEIQ) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL). 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.

	SEIQ	RWL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.72	2.58	-1.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.06	3.58	-2.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.46	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.81	3.96	-3.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.11	16.57	-13.47

SEIQ vs. RWL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SEIQ Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is lower than the RWL Sharpe Ratio of 2.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SEIQ and RWL, 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

SEIQ vs. RWL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SEIQ drawdown since its inception was -14.87%, smaller than the maximum RWL drawdown of -54.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SEIQ and RWL.

Drawdown Indicators

	SEIQ	RWL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.87%	-54.83%	+39.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.66%	-6.64%	-3.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.27%	-14.39%	+0.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.49%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.65%	-1.53%	-2.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.72%	-6.43%	+3.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.50%	1.58%	+0.92%

Volatility

SEIQ vs. RWL - Volatility Comparison

SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF (SEIQ) has a higher volatility of 3.72% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) at 3.16%. This indicates that SEIQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RWL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SEIQ	RWL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.72%	3.16%	+0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.60%	7.43%	+1.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.92%	10.20%	+0.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.59%	14.51%	+0.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.59%	16.84%	-2.25%

SEIQ vs. RWL - Expense Ratio Comparison

SEIQ has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than RWL's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

SEIQ vs. RWL - Dividend Comparison

SEIQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, less than RWL's 1.27% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	1.27%	1.35%	1.43%	1.60%	1.62%	1.35%	1.75%	1.87%	1.99%	1.60%	1.71%	1.97%
SEIQ SEI Enhanced US Large Cap Quality Factor ETF	0.95%	0.94%	0.97%	1.08%	0.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SEIQ and RWL in my portfolio?

SEIQ and RWL 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.

Which is riskier, SEIQ or RWL?

SEIQ has higher volatility (3.72%) compared to RWL (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SEIQ dropped -14.87% vs RWL's -54.83%.

Which ETF is better, SEIQ or RWL?

On 3-year performance, RWL leads with 19.58% vs 12.03% for SEIQ. On fees, SEIQ is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 3.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SEIQ or RWL?

Over the 3-year period, RWL has performed better with a 19.58% return vs 12.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SEIQ or RWL?

SEIQ is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for RWL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SEIQ or RWL?

RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.27%, compared with 0.95% for SEIQ.

What is the main difference between SEIQ and RWL?

SEIQ is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while RWL is S&P 500. They also come from different issuers: SEI and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for SEIQ and 0.39% for RWL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.58 vs 0.72), 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.