SMMD vs. RFG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

SMMD (iShares Russell 2500 ETF) and RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds - SMMD tracks the Russell 2500 Index while RFG tracks the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SMMD returned 7.75%/yr vs 8.70%/yr for RFG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SMMD charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFG.

Performance

SMMD vs. RFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SMMD achieves a 18.99% return, which is significantly lower than RFG's 22.56% return.

SMMD

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 3.44%
• YTD: 18.99%
• 6M: 17.98%
• 1Y: 36.93%
• 3Y*: 19.07%
• 5Y*: 7.75%
• 10Y*: —

RFG

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 5.05%
• YTD: 22.56%
• 6M: 21.53%
• 1Y: 33.54%
• 3Y*: 21.00%
• 5Y*: 8.70%
• 10Y*: 10.48%

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

SMMD vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SMMD iShares Russell 2500 ETF	18.99%	11.72%	11.87%	17.71%	-18.53%	18.30%	19.98%	28.01%	-10.58%	10.82%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	22.56%	8.80%	17.80%	16.42%	-21.70%	13.81%	32.86%	17.09%	-13.98%	10.03%

Correlation

The correlation between SMMD and RFG is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2017	0.89

The correlation between SMMD and RFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMMD vs. RFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SMMD	RFG
Industrials	21.0%	31.3%
Technology	18.8%	21.2%
Financial Services	13.8%	3.7%
Healthcare	11.8%	19.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	7.6%
Real Estate	6.7%	2.2%
Energy	4.9%	5.4%
Basic Materials	4.4%	3.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.8%	3.1%
Utilities	2.7%	2.4%
Communication Services	2.5%	0.6%

Return for Risk

SMMD vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

SMMD

SMMD Risk / Return Rank: 70
SMMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
SMMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
SMMD Omega Ratio Rank: 61
SMMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
SMMD Martin Ratio Rank: 77

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 59
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 51
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

SMMD vs. RFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). 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.

	SMMD	RFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.16	1.82	+0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.02	2.59	+0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.31	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.84	3.24	+0.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.65	13.12	+1.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SMMD vs. RFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMMD Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is comparable to the RFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMMD and RFG, 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

	SMMD	RFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.16	1.82	+0.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.37	0.38	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	0.43	+0.07

Drawdowns

SMMD vs. RFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMMD drawdown since its inception was -41.06%, smaller than the maximum RFG drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMMD and RFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMMD	RFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.06%	-51.93%	+10.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.66%	-10.41%	+0.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.50%	-26.71%	+1.21%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.26%	-35.16%	+6.90%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.92%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.11%	0.00%	-0.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.37%	-8.97%	+0.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	2.56%	-0.03%

Volatility

SMMD vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 2500 ETF (SMMD) is 5.01%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a volatility of 6.10%. This indicates that SMMD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SMMD	RFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.01%	6.10%	-1.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.58%	14.72%	-2.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.16%	18.50%	-1.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.82%	22.80%	-1.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.36%	23.05%	-0.69%

SMMD vs. RFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMMD has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than RFG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMMD vs. RFG - Dividend Comparison

SMMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%, more than RFG's 0.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	0.31%	0.43%	0.38%	0.99%	0.78%	0.05%	0.27%	0.64%	0.76%	0.66%	0.35%	0.61%
SMMD iShares Russell 2500 ETF	1.05%	1.28%	1.27%	1.44%	1.79%	1.12%	1.31%	1.50%	2.45%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMMD and RFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, SMMD and RFG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, SMMD or RFG?

RFG has higher volatility (6.10%) compared to SMMD (5.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMMD dropped -41.06% vs RFG's -51.93%.

Which ETF is better, SMMD or RFG?

On 5-year performance, RFG leads with 8.70% vs 7.75% for SMMD. On fees, SMMD is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, SMMD has been the lower-risk option at 5.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMMD or RFG?

Over the 5-year period, RFG has performed better with a 8.70% return vs 7.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMMD or RFG?

SMMD is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SMMD or RFG?

SMMD has the higher dividend yield at 1.05%, compared with 0.31% for RFG.

What is the main difference between SMMD and RFG?

SMMD tracks Russell 2500 Index, while RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for SMMD and 0.35% for RFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SMMD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs 1.82), 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.