SMCO vs. BMVP

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

SMCO (Hilton Small-Midcap Opportunity ETF) and BMVP (Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. SMCO is actively managed, while BMVP is passively managed. Over the past year, SMCO returned 23.96% vs 8.92% for BMVP. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SMCO charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for BMVP.

Performance

SMCO vs. BMVP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Hilton Small-Midcap Opportunity ETF (SMCO) and Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SMCO achieves a 12.72% return, which is significantly higher than BMVP's 5.98% return.

SMCO

• 1D: 0.86%
• 1M: 1.85%
• YTD: 12.72%
• 6M: 13.48%
• 1Y: 23.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BMVP

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -0.40%
• YTD: 5.98%
• 6M: 6.32%
• 1Y: 8.92%
• 3Y*: 13.76%
• 5Y*: 6.28%
• 10Y*: 9.53%

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

SMCO vs. BMVP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SMCO Hilton Small-Midcap Opportunity ETF	12.72%	6.46%	17.78%	7.84%
BMVP Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF	5.98%	6.15%	17.46%	6.82%

Correlation

The correlation between SMCO and BMVP is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2023	0.75

The correlation between SMCO and BMVP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

SMCO vs. BMVP — Risk / Return Rank

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

SMCO

SMCO Risk / Return Rank: 45
SMCO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
SMCO Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
SMCO Omega Ratio Rank: 41
SMCO Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
SMCO Martin Ratio Rank: 49

BMVP

BMVP Risk / Return Rank: 26
BMVP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
BMVP Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
BMVP Omega Ratio Rank: 23
BMVP Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
BMVP Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

SMCO vs. BMVP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hilton Small-Midcap Opportunity ETF (SMCO) and Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP). 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.

	SMCO	BMVP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	0.92	+0.61
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.23	1.39	+0.85
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.16	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	1.41	+1.11
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.51	4.34	+4.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SMCO vs. BMVP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMCO Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is higher than the BMVP Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMCO and BMVP, 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

	SMCO	BMVP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	0.92	+0.61
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.01	0.11	+0.90

Drawdowns

SMCO vs. BMVP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMCO drawdown since its inception was -22.71%, smaller than the maximum BMVP drawdown of -78.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMCO and BMVP.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMCO	BMVP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.71%	-78.13%	+55.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.56%	-6.45%	-3.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.12%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.58%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.25%	+2.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.76%	-36.21%	+32.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.83%	2.10%	+0.73%

Volatility

SMCO vs. BMVP - Volatility Comparison

Hilton Small-Midcap Opportunity ETF (SMCO) has a higher volatility of 3.94% compared to Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP) at 2.31%. This indicates that SMCO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BMVP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SMCO	BMVP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.94%	2.31%	+1.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.82%	7.24%	+4.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.75%	9.74%	+6.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.23%	16.07%	+2.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.23%	18.82%	-0.59%

SMCO vs. BMVP - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMCO has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than BMVP's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMCO vs. BMVP - Dividend Comparison

SMCO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than BMVP's 1.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BMVP Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF	1.68%	1.77%	1.58%	1.67%	1.51%	0.56%	1.09%	0.95%	1.44%	1.75%	1.35%	1.02%
SMCO Hilton Small-Midcap Opportunity ETF	0.89%	1.01%	0.47%	0.05%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMCO and BMVP in my portfolio?

SMCO and BMVP have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SMCO or BMVP?

SMCO has higher volatility (3.94%) compared to BMVP (2.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMCO dropped -22.71% vs BMVP's -78.13%.

Which ETF is better, SMCO or BMVP?

On 1-year performance, SMCO leads with 23.96% vs 8.92% for BMVP. On fees, BMVP is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, BMVP has been the lower-risk option at 2.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMCO or BMVP?

Over the 1-year period, SMCO has performed better with a 23.96% return vs 8.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMCO or BMVP?

BMVP is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for SMCO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SMCO or BMVP?

BMVP has the higher dividend yield at 1.68%, compared with 0.89% for SMCO.

What is the main difference between SMCO and BMVP?

They also come from different issuers: Hilton and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for SMCO and 0.29% for BMVP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SMCO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 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.