PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XMHQ vs. RWK
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XMHQ vs. RWK

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) and RWK (Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMHQ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index, while RWK is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Revenue-Weighted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMHQ returned 13.03%/yr vs 13.16%/yr for RWK. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XMHQ charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for RWK.

Performance

XMHQ vs. RWK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK). 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 8.87% return, which is significantly lower than RWK's 14.32% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with XMHQ having a 13.03% annualized return and RWK not far ahead at 13.16%.

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%

RWK

1D
-0.04%
1M
3.93%
YTD
14.32%
6M
11.91%
1Y
28.00%
3Y*
17.62%
5Y*
11.68%
10Y*
13.16%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMHQ vs. RWK - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
RWK
Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF		14.32%10.27%11.94%23.76%-8.19%34.31%11.06%28.20%-14.65%13.39%

Correlation

The correlation between XMHQ and RWK is 0.87, 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

0.87

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

0.90

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

0.93

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

0.88

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2008

0.83

The correlation between XMHQ and RWK shifts across timeframes, from 0.83 (all time) to 0.93 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XMHQ vs. RWK - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMHQ
RWK

Industrials

25.9%
22.1%

Healthcare

20.4%
4.2%

Financial Services

14.3%
12.1%

Technology

13.5%
16.1%

Consumer Cyclical

9.4%
20.4%

Energy

5.9%
5.0%

Basic Materials

5.0%
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

3.4%
10.4%

Communication Services

2.7%
0.7%

Utilities

2.2%
1.6%

Real Estate

-

2.6%

Industrials

XMHQ
25.9%
RWK
22.1%

Healthcare

XMHQ
20.4%
RWK
4.2%

Financial Services

XMHQ
14.3%
RWK
12.1%

Technology

XMHQ
13.5%
RWK
16.1%

Consumer Cyclical

XMHQ
9.4%
RWK
20.4%

Energy

XMHQ
5.9%
RWK
5.0%

Basic Materials

XMHQ
5.0%
RWK
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

XMHQ
3.4%
RWK
10.4%

Communication Services

XMHQ
2.7%
RWK
0.7%

Utilities

XMHQ
2.2%
RWK
1.6%

Real Estate

XMHQ

-

RWK
2.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF

Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF

Often compared with XMHQ:
XMHQ vs. XMMOXMHQ vs. IMCGXMHQ vs. MDYXMHQ vs. RFVXMHQ vs. GRPMXMHQ vs. FLQMXMHQ vs. QQQ
Often compared with RWK:
RWK vs. RWJRWK vs. RFVRWK vs. XMVMRWK vs. PRNRWK vs. ONEYRWK vs. PRFZRWK vs. BOSOX

Return for Risk

XMHQ vs. RWK — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XMHQ
XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank
RWK
RWK Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
RWK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RWK Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
RWK Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
RWK Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
RWK Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
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. RWK - 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 Revenue ETF (RWK). 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.

XMHQRWKDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.06
1.67

-0.62

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.63
2.51

-0.88

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.29

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.88

2.53

-0.65

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.48

8.11

-2.63

XMHQ vs. RWK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMHQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is lower than the RWK Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMHQ and RWK, 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...

Drawdowns

XMHQ vs. RWK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMHQ drawdown since its inception was -58.19%, roughly equal to the maximum RWK drawdown of -56.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMHQ and RWK.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMHQRWKDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.19%

-56.49%

-1.70%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.85%

-11.14%

+2.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.56%

-24.58%

+0.02%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.47%

-24.58%

-0.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.90%

-46.20%

+9.30%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.26%

-1.45%

+0.19%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.27%

-7.53%

-1.74%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.02%

3.46%

-0.44%

Volatility

XMHQ vs. RWK - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF (RWK) have volatilities of 4.35% and 4.32%, 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

XMHQRWKDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.35%

4.32%

+0.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.42%

12.11%

-0.69%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.76%

16.84%

-1.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.74%

21.09%

-0.35%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.71%

22.97%

-2.26%

XMHQ vs. RWK - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMHQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than RWK's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMHQ vs. RWK - Dividend Comparison

XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than RWK's 1.36% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RWK
Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF		1.36%1.25%1.11%1.05%1.18%0.85%0.96%1.09%1.22%0.99%1.30%0.92%
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 RWK have a correlation of 0.87, 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 RWK (4.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMHQ dropped -58.19% vs RWK's -56.49%.

On 10-year performance, RWK leads with 13.16% vs 13.03% for XMHQ. 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, RWK has performed better with a 13.16% return vs 13.03%. 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 0.39% for RWK.

RWK has the higher dividend yield at 1.36%, compared with 0.70% for XMHQ.

XMHQ is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while RWK is Small Cap Blend Equities. XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index, while RWK tracks S&P MidCap 400 Revenue-Weighted Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMHQ and 0.39% for RWK.

RWK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMHQ and RWK

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