XMHQ vs. FAD

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) and FAD (First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - XMHQ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Index, while FAD is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX Multi Cap Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMHQ returned 12.75%/yr vs 14.57%/yr for FAD. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMHQ charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for FAD.

Performance

XMHQ vs. FAD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMHQ achieves a 10.27% return, which is significantly lower than FAD's 17.81% return. Over the past 10 years, XMHQ has underperformed FAD with an annualized return of 12.75%, while FAD has yielded a comparatively higher 14.57% annualized return.

XMHQ

• 1D: 0.71%
• 1M: 2.77%
• YTD: 10.27%
• 6M: 9.61%
• 1Y: 15.31%
• 3Y*: 17.32%
• 5Y*: 9.53%
• 10Y*: 12.75%

FAD

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: 5.36%
• YTD: 17.81%
• 6M: 16.71%
• 1Y: 35.19%
• 3Y*: 24.68%
• 5Y*: 11.36%
• 10Y*: 14.57%

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

XMHQ vs. FAD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	10.27%	4.71%	16.79%	29.51%	-12.42%	20.98%	26.61%	27.18%	-9.08%	15.64%
FAD First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund	17.81%	17.23%	23.85%	19.07%	-24.06%	21.17%	34.92%	26.66%	-6.45%	25.75%

Correlation

The correlation between XMHQ and FAD 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	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2007	0.76

The correlation between XMHQ and FAD shifts across timeframes, from 0.76 (all time) to 0.88 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XMHQ vs. FAD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMHQ	FAD
Industrials	25.8%	26.1%
Healthcare	19.7%	15.4%
Financial Services	15.1%	8.0%
Technology	12.1%	24.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.7%	10.8%
Energy	6.7%	1.6%
Basic Materials	4.8%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.9%	2.4%
Communication Services	2.7%	3.1%
Utilities	2.2%	1.6%
Real Estate	-	4.1%

Return for Risk

XMHQ vs. FAD — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 31
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 27
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 34

FAD

FAD Risk / Return Rank: 61
FAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
FAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
FAD Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FAD Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. FAD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD). 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.

	XMHQ	FAD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.00	1.91	-0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.56	2.64	-1.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.33	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.74	3.31	-1.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.09	12.78	-7.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XMHQ vs. FAD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMHQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is lower than the FAD Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMHQ and FAD, 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

	XMHQ	FAD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.00	1.91	-0.91
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46	0.56	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.62	0.69	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.50	-0.05

Drawdowns

XMHQ vs. FAD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMHQ drawdown since its inception was -58.19%, which is greater than FAD's maximum drawdown of -54.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMHQ and FAD.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMHQ	FAD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.19%	-54.33%	-3.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.85%	-10.66%	+1.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.56%	-23.55%	-1.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.47%	-31.99%	+6.52%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.90%	-37.25%	+0.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.29%	-9.64%	+0.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.02%	2.76%	+0.26%

Volatility

XMHQ vs. FAD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) is 4.27%, while First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) has a volatility of 5.82%. This indicates that XMHQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FAD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMHQ	FAD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.27%	5.82%	-1.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.10%	14.15%	-3.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.43%	18.49%	-3.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.74%	20.53%	+0.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.70%	21.18%	-0.48%

XMHQ vs. FAD - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMHQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than FAD's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMHQ vs. FAD - Dividend Comparison

XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, more than FAD's 0.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FAD First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund	0.09%	0.09%	0.59%	0.51%	0.60%	0.09%	0.32%	0.48%	0.20%	0.22%	0.64%	0.41%
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

Can I hold both XMHQ and FAD in my portfolio?

XMHQ and FAD 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, XMHQ or FAD?

FAD has higher volatility (5.82%) compared to XMHQ (4.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMHQ dropped -58.19% vs FAD's -54.33%.

Which ETF is better, XMHQ or FAD?

On 10-year performance, FAD leads with 14.57% vs 12.75% for XMHQ. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 4.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XMHQ or FAD?

Over the 10-year period, FAD has performed better with a 14.57% return vs 12.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMHQ or FAD?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for FAD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XMHQ or FAD?

XMHQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.55%, compared with 0.09% for FAD.

What is the main difference between XMHQ and FAD?

XMHQ is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while FAD is Mid Cap Growth Equities. XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index, while FAD tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Multi Cap Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMHQ and 0.63% for FAD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FAD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.00), 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.