XMHQ vs. VFMV
XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) and VFMV (Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. XMHQ is passively managed, while VFMV is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMHQ returned 9.37%/yr vs 9.82%/yr for VFMV. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMHQ charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for VFMV.
Performance
XMHQ vs. VFMV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XMHQ achieves a 9.49% return, which is significantly higher than VFMV's 8.53% 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%
VFMV
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- 1.30%
- YTD
- 8.53%
- 6M
- 8.37%
- 1Y
- 13.05%
- 3Y*
- 14.70%
- 5Y*
- 9.82%
- 10Y*
- —
XMHQ vs. VFMV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF | 9.49% | 4.71% | 16.79% | 29.51% | -12.42% | 20.98% | 26.61% | 27.18% | -8.27% |
VFMV Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF | 8.53% | 10.52% | 16.91% | 8.86% | -5.73% | 20.75% | -0.19% | 27.26% | -1.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMHQ and VFMV is 0.74, 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 | 0.74 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.76 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.77 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 16, 2018 | 0.75 |
The correlation between XMHQ and VFMV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.
XMHQ vs. VFMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XMHQ
VFMV
Industrials
Healthcare
Financial Services
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Energy
Basic Materials
-
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Utilities
Real Estate
-
Industrials
XMHQ
VFMV
Healthcare
XMHQ
VFMV
Financial Services
XMHQ
VFMV
Technology
XMHQ
VFMV
Consumer Cyclical
XMHQ
VFMV
Energy
XMHQ
VFMV
Basic Materials
XMHQ
VFMV
-
Consumer Defensive
XMHQ
VFMV
Communication Services
XMHQ
VFMV
Utilities
XMHQ
VFMV
Real Estate
XMHQ
-
VFMV
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. VFMV — Risk / Return Rank
XMHQ
VFMV
XMHQ vs. VFMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) and Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV). 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 | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.56 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.70 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.26 | -0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.63 | 2.18 | -0.56 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.76 | 8.57 | -3.81 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XMHQ | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.93 | 1.49 | -0.56 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.45 | 0.84 | -0.39 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.62 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.45 | 0.69 | -0.24 |
Drawdowns
XMHQ vs. VFMV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMHQ drawdown since its inception was -58.19%, which is greater than VFMV's maximum drawdown of -33.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMHQ and VFMV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMHQ | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.19% | -33.64% | -24.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.85% | -6.00% | -2.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.56% | -10.35% | -14.21% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.47% | -15.41% | -10.06% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.90% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -1.02% | +1.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.29% | -3.64% | -5.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.02% | 1.53% | +1.49% |
Volatility
XMHQ vs. VFMV - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) has a higher volatility of 4.67% compared to Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV) at 2.09%. This indicates that XMHQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VFMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XMHQ | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.67% | 2.09% | +2.58% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.09% | 6.30% | +4.79% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.47% | 8.80% | +6.67% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.74% | 11.75% | +8.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.71% | 14.25% | +6.46% |
XMHQ vs. VFMV - Expense Ratio Comparison
XMHQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than VFMV's 0.13% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
XMHQ vs. VFMV - Dividend Comparison
XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, less than VFMV's 1.93% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VFMV Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF | 1.93% | 2.12% | 1.46% | 2.20% | 2.08% | 1.31% | 2.14% | 2.43% | 2.29% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
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 VFMV have a correlation of 0.74, 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 VFMV (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMHQ dropped -58.19% vs VFMV's -33.64%.
On 5-year performance, VFMV leads with 9.82% vs 9.37% for XMHQ. On fees, VFMV is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, VFMV has been the lower-risk option at 2.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, VFMV has performed better with a 9.82% return vs 9.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VFMV is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XMHQ.
VFMV has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 0.55% for XMHQ.
They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMHQ and 0.13% for VFMV.
VFMV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 0.93), 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 VFMV
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