PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
SIZE vs. XLG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

SIZE vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 24, 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 12.00%/yr vs 16.94%/yr for XLG. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SIZE achieves a 8.82% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 1.60% return. Over the past 10 years, SIZE has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 12.00%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 16.94% annualized return.

SIZE

1D
-0.38%
1M
0.73%
YTD
8.82%
6M
7.67%
1Y
17.11%
3Y*
15.52%
5Y*
7.90%
10Y*
12.00%

XLG

1D
-1.88%
1M
-5.41%
YTD
1.60%
6M
0.73%
1Y
19.95%
3Y*
21.35%
5Y*
14.28%
10Y*
16.94%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SIZE vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SIZE
iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF		8.82%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		1.60%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 0.54, 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

0.54

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

0.63

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

0.76

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

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 0.54 (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

20.0%
46.8%

Industrials

15.3%
1.9%

Financial Services

14.7%
9.0%

Consumer Cyclical

11.2%
11.2%

Healthcare

10.7%
7.0%

Utilities

5.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

5.3%
5.2%

Real Estate

5.3%

-

Basic Materials

4.3%
0.6%

Communication Services

3.9%
16.0%

Energy

3.7%
2.4%

Technology

SIZE
20.0%
XLG
46.8%

Industrials

SIZE
15.3%
XLG
1.9%

Financial Services

SIZE
14.7%
XLG
9.0%

Consumer Cyclical

SIZE
11.2%
XLG
11.2%

Healthcare

SIZE
10.7%
XLG
7.0%

Utilities

SIZE
5.4%
XLG

-

Consumer Defensive

SIZE
5.3%
XLG
5.2%

Real Estate

SIZE
5.3%
XLG

-

Basic Materials

SIZE
4.3%
XLG
0.6%

Communication Services

SIZE
3.9%
XLG
16.0%

Energy

SIZE
3.7%
XLG
2.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF

Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF

Often compared with SIZE:
SIZE vs. SPYSIZE vs. QUALSIZE vs. QDVA.DESIZE vs. VIGSIZE vs. VOOSIZE vs. IJHSIZE vs. QGRO
Often compared with XLG:
XLG vs. SPYXLG vs. QQQXLG vs. VOOXLG vs. XLKXLG vs. TOPTXLG vs. MGKXLG vs. SPYG

Return for Risk

SIZE vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
SIZE
SIZE Risk / Return Rank: 4343
Overall Rank
SIZE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SIZE Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
SIZE Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
SIZE Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
SIZE Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
Martin Ratio Rank
XLG
XLG Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 3838
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.

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.

SIZEXLGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.33
1.44

-0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.96
1.98

-0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.23

1.26

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.16

1.61

+0.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.33

5.77

+2.56

SIZE vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SIZE Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. 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.

Loading charts...

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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

SIZEXLGDifference

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

-1.59%

-6.91%

+5.32%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.17%

-7.63%

+3.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.06%

3.46%

-1.40%

Volatility

SIZE vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF (SIZE) is 3.87%, while Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 5.04%. 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

SIZEXLGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.87%

5.04%

-1.17%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.83%

10.74%

-0.91%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.98%

13.98%

-1.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.43%

18.79%

-1.36%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.70%

18.88%

-0.18%

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 1.40%, more than XLG's 0.66% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
SIZE
iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF		1.40%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		0.66%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

SIZE and XLG have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XLG has higher volatility (5.04%) compared to SIZE (3.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SIZE dropped -39.15% vs XLG's -52.39%.

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 16.94% vs 12.00% for SIZE. On fees, SIZE is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, SIZE has been the lower-risk option at 3.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 16.94% return vs 12.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

SIZE has the higher dividend yield at 1.40%, compared with 0.66% for 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.

XLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.44 vs 1.33), 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 SIZE and XLG

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