SIZE vs. XLG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

SIZE (iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SIZE is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Low Size Index, 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, SIZE returned 11.70%/yr vs 16.35%/yr for XLG. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. SIZE charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

SIZE vs. XLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF (SIZE) 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, SIZE achieves a 11.20% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 2.89% return. Over the past 10 years, SIZE has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 11.70%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 16.35% annualized return.

SIZE

• 1D: -0.35%
• 1M: 0.26%
• 6M: 8.60%
• YTD: 11.20%
• 1Y: 17.37%
• 3Y*: 13.59%
• 5Y*: 7.99%
• 10Y*: 11.70%
• ALL TIME*: 11.92%

XLG

• 1D: 1.06%
• 1M: 0.07%
• 6M: 3.36%
• YTD: 2.89%
• 1Y: 15.84%
• 3Y*: 20.00%
• 5Y*: 13.72%
• 10Y*: 16.35%
• ALL TIME*: 11.32%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
SIZE iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF	$662.14K	$788.99K	$1.01M
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	$61.04M	$60.71M	$102.52M

SIZE vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SIZE iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF	11.20%	10.51%	14.37%	17.78%	-15.86%	25.05%	16.26%	28.97%	-6.59%	18.76%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	2.89%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between SIZE and XLG is 0.53, 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.	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.62
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.75
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2013	0.73

The correlation between SIZE and XLG shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.76 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SIZE vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SIZE	XLG
Technology	18.6%	49.8%
Financial Services	15.7%	10.3%
Industrials	14.8%	1.9%
Healthcare	11.4%	6.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	9.3%
Utilities	5.6%	0.7%
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	5.1%
Real Estate	5.3%	-
Basic Materials	4.9%	0.6%
Energy	3.8%	2.5%
Communication Services	3.3%	13.0%

Return for Risk

SIZE vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

SIZE

SIZE Risk / Return Rank: 55
SIZE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
SIZE Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
SIZE Omega Ratio Rank: 48
SIZE Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
SIZE Martin Ratio Rank: 65

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 35
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 35
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 35

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.

SIZE vs. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF (SIZE) 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.

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.

	SIZE	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	0.92	+0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.87	1.35	+0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.17	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	1.10	+0.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.91	3.41	+4.50

SIZE vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SIZE Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is higher than the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SIZE 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.

Drawdowns

SIZE vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SIZE drawdown since its inception was -39.15%, smaller than the maximum XLG drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SIZE and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	SIZE	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.15%	-52.39%	+13.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.97%	-12.41%	+4.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.71%	-20.70%	+1.99%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.03%	-28.02%	+3.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.15%	-30.46%	-8.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.39%	-5.74%	+4.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.14%	-7.62%	+3.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	3.98%	-1.95%

Volatility

SIZE vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF (SIZE) is 3.12%, while Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 5.03%. This indicates that SIZE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SIZE	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.12%	5.03%	-1.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.56%	11.54%	-1.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.93%	14.75%	-1.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.40%	18.89%	-1.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.67%	18.92%	-0.25%

SIZE vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

SIZE has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

SIZE vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

SIZE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, more than XLG's 0.65% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
SIZE iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF	1.37%	1.50%	1.53%	1.42%	1.59%	1.19%	1.43%	1.35%	2.43%	1.58%	1.88%	1.95%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.65%	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 SIZE and XLG in my portfolio?

SIZE and XLG have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SIZE or XLG?

XLG has higher volatility (5.03%) compared to SIZE (3.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SIZE dropped -39.15% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, SIZE or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 16.35% vs 11.70% for SIZE. On fees, SIZE is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, SIZE has been the lower-risk option at 3.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SIZE or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 16.35% return vs 11.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SIZE or XLG?

SIZE is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for XLG.

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

SIZE has the higher dividend yield at 1.37%, compared with 0.65% for XLG.

What is the main difference between SIZE and XLG?

SIZE is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. SIZE tracks MSCI USA Low Size Index, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for SIZE and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SIZE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs 0.92), 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.