TMFS vs. RZG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and RZG (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. TMFS is actively managed, while RZG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFS returned -2.26%/yr vs 5.97%/yr for RZG. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RZG.

Performance

TMFS vs. RZG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a -0.78% return, which is significantly lower than RZG's 27.46% return.

TMFS

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 0.84%
• YTD: -0.78%
• 6M: -4.22%
• 1Y: -1.24%
• 3Y*: 7.66%
• 5Y*: -2.26%
• 10Y*: —

RZG

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 8.64%
• YTD: 27.46%
• 6M: 23.58%
• 1Y: 40.75%
• 3Y*: 20.36%
• 5Y*: 5.97%
• 10Y*: 10.90%

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

TMFS vs. RZG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	-0.78%	-1.59%	15.41%	25.40%	-33.15%	-2.38%	58.52%	40.19%	-6.14%
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	27.46%	10.22%	9.84%	19.15%	-29.00%	21.01%	17.76%	14.25%	-7.72%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFS and RZG is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 30, 2018	0.84

The correlation between TMFS and RZG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

TMFS vs. RZG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFS	RZG
Technology	24.4%	18.4%
Industrials	23.8%	16.8%
Healthcare	20.7%	22.7%
Financial Services	13.2%	15.4%
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	9.1%
Real Estate	5.5%	5.5%
Energy	3.1%	2.7%
Basic Materials	2.5%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	5.4%
Communication Services	-	3.5%
Utilities	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

TMFS vs. RZG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFS

TMFS Risk / Return Rank: 8
TMFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
TMFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
TMFS Omega Ratio Rank: 8
TMFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
TMFS Martin Ratio Rank: 8

RZG

RZG Risk / Return Rank: 77
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 66
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
RZG 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.

TMFS vs. RZG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). 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.

	TMFS	RZG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.06	2.16	-2.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.06	3.15	-3.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.37	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.08	4.75	-4.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.21	16.04	-16.25

TMFS vs. RZG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFS Sharpe Ratio is -0.06, which is lower than the RZG Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFS and RZG, 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

TMFS vs. RZG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, smaller than the maximum RZG drawdown of -58.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and RZG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFS	RZG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.79%	-58.52%	+9.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.73%	-8.63%	-7.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.05%	-25.73%	-1.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-45.68%	-38.33%	-7.35%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-54.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.61%	-0.21%	-19.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.47%	-12.09%	-7.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.91%	2.55%	+3.36%

Volatility

TMFS vs. RZG - Volatility Comparison

Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) has a higher volatility of 5.81% compared to Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) at 5.43%. This indicates that TMFS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RZG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMFS	RZG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.81%	5.43%	+0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.28%	14.15%	+0.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.01%	18.98%	+1.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.01%	23.04%	-0.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.50%	24.65%	+0.85%

TMFS vs. RZG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than RZG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFS vs. RZG - Dividend Comparison

TMFS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.44%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF	0.44%	0.37%	0.95%	1.43%	1.59%	0.22%	0.49%	0.70%	0.46%	0.44%	0.65%	0.70%
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.34%	2.37%	5.57%	2.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFS and RZG in my portfolio?

TMFS and RZG have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFS or RZG?

TMFS has higher volatility (5.81%) compared to RZG (5.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs RZG's -58.52%.

Which ETF is better, TMFS or RZG?

On 5-year performance, RZG leads with 5.97% vs -2.26% for TMFS. On fees, RZG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RZG has been the lower-risk option at 5.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFS or RZG?

Over the 5-year period, RZG has performed better with a 5.97% return vs -2.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFS or RZG?

RZG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TMFS or RZG?

RZG has the higher dividend yield at 0.44%, compared with 0.00% for TMFS.

What is the main difference between TMFS and RZG?

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.35% for RZG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RZG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs -0.06), 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.