Screener
CZA vs XMLV
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF vs Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF
Key differences
- XMLV costs 0.44% less per year.
- XMLV is significantly larger than CZA — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- Over the last 3 years, CZA has delivered higher annualized returns.
- CZA has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| CZA | XMLV | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.69% | 0.25% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $184M | $716M |
| Since | 2007 | 2013 |
| Dividend yield | 1.47% | 2.87% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +14.6% | +8.4% |
| CAGR 3Y | +14.2% | +12.1% |
| CAGR 5Y | +6.9% | +5.9% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.73 | 0.67 |
| Volatility 1Y | 12.79% | 10.41% |
| Max drawdown | -46.18% | -39.86% |
Similar to CZA and XMLV
Explore further