Screener
RWK vs CZA
Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Revenue ETF vs Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF
Key differences
- RWK costs 0.30% less per year.
- RWK is significantly larger than CZA — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- Over the last 3 years, RWK has delivered higher annualized returns.
Side-by-side comparison
| RWK | CZA | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.39% | 0.69% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.2B | $184M |
| Since | 2008 | 2007 |
| Dividend yield | 1.14% | 1.47% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +27.3% | +14.6% |
| CAGR 3Y | +19.3% | +14.2% |
| CAGR 5Y | +10.5% | +6.9% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.84 | 0.73 |
| Volatility 1Y | 16.68% | 12.79% |
| Max drawdown | -46.20% | -46.18% |
Similar to RWK and CZA
Explore further