XMHQ vs. RFV
XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) and RFV (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMHQ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index, while RFV is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Value. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMHQ returned 13.03%/yr vs 12.75%/yr for RFV. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMHQ charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFV.
Performance
XMHQ vs. RFV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XMHQ achieves a 8.87% return, which is significantly lower than RFV's 12.44% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with XMHQ having a 13.03% annualized return and RFV not far behind at 12.75%.
XMHQ
- 1D
- 0.55%
- 1M
- 2.66%
- YTD
- 8.87%
- 6M
- 6.35%
- 1Y
- 16.53%
- 3Y*
- 15.38%
- 5Y*
- 9.84%
- 10Y*
- 13.03%
RFV
- 1D
- 0.15%
- 1M
- 3.08%
- YTD
- 12.44%
- 6M
- 10.55%
- 1Y
- 22.29%
- 3Y*
- 15.14%
- 5Y*
- 11.17%
- 10Y*
- 12.75%
XMHQ vs. RFV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF | 8.87% | 4.71% | 16.79% | 29.51% | -12.42% | 20.98% | 26.61% | 27.18% | -9.08% | 15.64% |
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF | 12.44% | 7.66% | 5.63% | 30.26% | -3.99% | 33.02% | 9.61% | 24.98% | -18.56% | 14.74% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMHQ and RFV is 0.75, 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 | 0.75 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.88 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2006 | 0.79 |
The correlation between XMHQ and RFV shifts across timeframes, from 0.75 (1 year) to 0.88 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XMHQ vs. RFV - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XMHQ
RFV
Industrials
Healthcare
Financial Services
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Energy
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
-
Utilities
-
Real Estate
-
Industrials
XMHQ
RFV
Healthcare
XMHQ
RFV
Financial Services
XMHQ
RFV
Technology
XMHQ
RFV
Consumer Cyclical
XMHQ
RFV
Energy
XMHQ
RFV
Basic Materials
XMHQ
RFV
Consumer Defensive
XMHQ
RFV
Communication Services
XMHQ
RFV
-
Utilities
XMHQ
RFV
-
Real Estate
XMHQ
-
RFV
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. RFV — Risk / Return Rank
XMHQ
RFV
XMHQ vs. RFV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV). 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.
| XMHQ | RFV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.19 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.22 | -0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.88 | 1.79 | +0.09 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.48 | 5.27 | +0.21 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
XMHQ vs. RFV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMHQ drawdown since its inception was -58.19%, smaller than the maximum RFV drawdown of -71.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMHQ and RFV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMHQ | RFV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.19% | -71.82% | +13.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.85% | -12.51% | +3.66% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.56% | -24.65% | +0.09% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.47% | -24.65% | -0.82% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.90% | -52.24% | +15.34% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.26% | -2.61% | +1.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.27% | -9.77% | +0.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.02% | 4.24% | -1.22% |
Volatility
XMHQ vs. RFV - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) have volatilities of 4.35% and 4.26%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XMHQ | RFV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.35% | 4.26% | +0.09% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.42% | 11.90% | -0.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.76% | 18.05% | -2.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.74% | 21.98% | -1.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.71% | 24.99% | -4.28% |
XMHQ vs. RFV - Expense Ratio Comparison
XMHQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than RFV's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
XMHQ vs. RFV - Dividend Comparison
XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than RFV's 2.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF | 2.24% | 2.07% | 1.31% | 1.27% | 2.05% | 1.60% | 1.52% | 1.71% | 1.39% | 1.36% | 0.88% | 1.79% |
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF | 0.70% | 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 RFV have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XMHQ has higher volatility (4.35%) compared to RFV (4.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMHQ dropped -58.19% vs RFV's -71.82%.
On 10-year performance, XMHQ leads with 13.03% vs 12.75% for RFV. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. Their volatility is very similar. 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 13.03% return vs 12.75%. 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 0.35% for RFV.
RFV has the higher dividend yield at 2.24%, compared with 0.70% for XMHQ.
XMHQ is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while RFV is Small Cap Value Equities. XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index, while RFV tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Value. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMHQ and 0.35% for RFV.
RFV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 vs 1.06), 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.
Find the right allocation for XMHQ and RFV
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