Screener
OMFL vs RFV
Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF vs Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Pure Value ETF
Key differences
- OMFL costs 0.06% less per year.
- OMFL is significantly larger than RFV — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- OMFL is classified as alternative, while RFV is equity — different risk/return profiles.
- OMFL follows a systematic alpha strategy; RFV uses index tracking.
- Over the last 3 years, RFV has delivered higher annualized returns.
- RFV has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| OMFL | RFV | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.29% | 0.35% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $4.6B | $313M |
| Since | 2017 | 2006 |
| Dividend yield | 0.78% | 1.88% |
| Asset class | alternative | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | systematic alpha | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +25.0% | +24.6% |
| CAGR 3Y | +14.3% | +16.7% |
| CAGR 5Y | +9.8% | +9.8% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.73 | 0.67 |
| Volatility 1Y | 12.16% | 18.26% |
| Max drawdown | -33.24% | -52.24% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to OMFL and RFV
Explore further