XMHQ vs. ROE

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) and ROE (Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF) are both Quality Factor funds. XMHQ is passively managed, while ROE is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, XMHQ returned 14.23%/yr vs 21.23%/yr for ROE. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. XMHQ charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for ROE.

Performance

XMHQ vs. ROE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMHQ achieves a 13.81% return, which is significantly lower than ROE's 21.52% return.

XMHQ

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: 2.55%
• 6M: 8.92%
• YTD: 13.81%
• 1Y: 17.48%
• 3Y*: 14.23%
• 5Y*: 10.44%
• 10Y*: 12.81%
• ALL TIME*: 9.54%

ROE

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: 1.61%
• 6M: 15.98%
• YTD: 21.52%
• 1Y: 34.66%
• 3Y*: 21.23%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.65%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	$1.14M	$1.17M	$931.17K
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	$19.09M	$19.28M	$20.51M

XMHQ vs. ROE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	13.81%	4.71%	16.79%	6.30%
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	21.52%	17.20%	18.34%	4.31%

Correlation

The correlation between XMHQ and ROE is 0.76, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2023	0.85

The correlation between XMHQ and ROE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMHQ vs. ROE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMHQ	ROE
Industrials	30.2%	9.0%
Technology	18.5%	33.9%
Healthcare	16.0%	10.2%
Financial Services	15.1%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	11.0%
Energy	6.9%	2.9%
Utilities	2.2%	2.0%
Basic Materials	1.5%	1.0%
Communication Services	1.4%	11.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	4.9%
Real Estate	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

XMHQ vs. ROE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 48
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 42
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 50

ROE

ROE Risk / Return Rank: 90
ROE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ROE Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
ROE Omega Ratio Rank: 87
ROE Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
ROE Martin Ratio Rank: 93

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

XMHQ vs. ROE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE). 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	ROE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	2.32	-1.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	3.09	-1.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.40	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.98	4.02	-2.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.90	17.11	-11.22

XMHQ vs. ROE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMHQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is lower than the ROE Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMHQ and ROE, 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

XMHQ vs. ROE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMHQ drawdown since its inception was -58.19%, which is greater than ROE's maximum drawdown of -19.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMHQ and ROE.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMHQ	ROE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.19%	-19.10%	-39.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.85%	-8.66%	-0.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.56%	-19.10%	-5.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.47%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.34%	+0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.22%	-2.54%	-6.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.97%	2.03%	+0.94%

Volatility

XMHQ vs. ROE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) is 3.28%, while Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) has a volatility of 3.61%. This indicates that XMHQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ROE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMHQ	ROE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.28%	3.61%	-0.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.03%	11.74%	-0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.18%	15.05%	+0.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.58%	15.87%	+4.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.64%	15.87%	+4.77%

XMHQ vs. ROE - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMHQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than ROE's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMHQ vs. ROE - Dividend Comparison

XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, less than ROE's 1.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	1.00%	0.97%	1.18%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.56%	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 ROE in my portfolio?

XMHQ and ROE have a correlation of 0.76, 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 ROE?

ROE has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to XMHQ (3.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMHQ dropped -58.19% vs ROE's -19.10%.

Which ETF is better, XMHQ or ROE?

On 3-year performance, ROE leads with 21.23% vs 14.23% for XMHQ. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XMHQ or ROE?

Over the 3-year period, ROE has performed better with a 21.23% return vs 14.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMHQ or ROE?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ROE.

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

ROE has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.56% for XMHQ.

What is the main difference between XMHQ and ROE?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Astoria. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMHQ and 0.49% for ROE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ROE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 1.16), 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.