PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XMHQ vs. BMVP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMHQ achieves a 9.49% return, which is significantly higher than BMVP's 5.85% return. Over the past 10 years, XMHQ has outperformed BMVP with an annualized return of 12.83%, while BMVP has yielded a comparatively lower 9.52% annualized return.


XMHQ

1D
0.50%
1M
4.20%
YTD
9.49%
6M
9.51%
1Y
14.33%
3Y*
16.56%
5Y*
9.37%
10Y*
12.83%

BMVP

1D
-0.13%
1M
0.31%
YTD
5.85%
6M
6.04%
1Y
8.50%
3Y*
13.71%
5Y*
6.10%
10Y*
9.52%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMHQ
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
9.49%4.71%16.79%29.51%-12.42%20.98%26.61%27.18%-9.08%15.64%
BMVP
Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF
5.85%6.15%17.46%19.03%-16.01%19.38%8.52%13.47%-6.40%20.16%

Correlation

The correlation between XMHQ and BMVP is 0.67, 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

0.67

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

0.77

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

0.84

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

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2006

0.79

The correlation between XMHQ and BMVP shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.84 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XMHQ
BMVP

Industrials

25.8%
16.8%

Healthcare

19.7%
9.7%

Financial Services

15.1%
16.4%

Technology

12.1%
16.4%

Consumer Cyclical

9.7%
10.6%

Energy

6.7%
5.2%

Basic Materials

4.8%
1.6%

Consumer Defensive

3.9%
5.1%

Communication Services

2.7%
7.6%

Utilities

2.2%
5.1%

Real Estate

-

5.5%

Industrials

XMHQ
25.8%
BMVP
16.8%

Healthcare

XMHQ
19.7%
BMVP
9.7%

Financial Services

XMHQ
15.1%
BMVP
16.4%

Technology

XMHQ
12.1%
BMVP
16.4%

Consumer Cyclical

XMHQ
9.7%
BMVP
10.6%

Energy

XMHQ
6.7%
BMVP
5.2%

Basic Materials

XMHQ
4.8%
BMVP
1.6%

Consumer Defensive

XMHQ
3.9%
BMVP
5.1%

Communication Services

XMHQ
2.7%
BMVP
7.6%

Utilities

XMHQ
2.2%
BMVP
5.1%

Real Estate

XMHQ

-

BMVP
5.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

XMHQ vs. BMVP — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMHQ
XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank

BMVP
BMVP Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
BMVP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BMVP Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
BMVP Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
BMVP Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
BMVP Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
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.

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) 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.


XMHQBMVPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.14

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.15

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.63

1.32

+0.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.76

4.06

+0.70

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMHQ Sharpe Ratio is 0.93, which is comparable to the BMVP Sharpe Ratio of 0.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMHQ 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XMHQBMVPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.93

0.88

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.45

0.38

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

0.51

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

0.11

+0.34

Drawdowns

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMHQ drawdown since its inception was -58.19%, smaller than the maximum BMVP drawdown of -78.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMHQ and BMVP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XMHQBMVPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.19%

-78.13%

+19.94%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.85%

-6.45%

-2.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.56%

-15.12%

-9.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.47%

-26.58%

+1.11%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.90%

-39.45%

+2.55%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-2.37%

+2.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.29%

-36.21%

+26.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.02%

2.10%

+0.92%

Volatility

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) has a higher volatility of 4.67% compared to Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP) at 2.14%. This indicates that XMHQ'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XMHQBMVPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.67%

2.14%

+2.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.09%

7.19%

+3.90%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.47%

9.75%

+5.72%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.74%

16.07%

+4.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.71%

18.81%

+1.90%

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMHQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than BMVP's 0.29% expense ratio.


Dividends

XMHQ vs. BMVP - Dividend Comparison

XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, less than BMVP's 1.68% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XMHQ
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
0.55%0.64%5.20%0.73%1.72%1.00%1.12%1.22%1.59%1.06%1.63%1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions


XMHQ and BMVP have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XMHQ has higher volatility (4.67%) compared to BMVP (2.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMHQ dropped -58.19% vs BMVP's -78.13%.

On 10-year performance, XMHQ leads with 12.83% vs 9.52% for BMVP. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BMVP has been the lower-risk option at 2.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XMHQ has performed better with a 12.83% return vs 9.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for BMVP.

BMVP has the higher dividend yield at 1.68%, compared with 0.55% for XMHQ.

XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index, while BMVP tracks Bloomberg MVP Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMHQ and 0.29% for BMVP.

XMHQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.93 vs 0.88), 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 XMHQ and BMVP

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