Screener
XMLV vs RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF vs Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Pure Growth ETF
Key differences
- XMLV costs 0.10% less per year.
- Over the last 3 years, RFG has delivered higher annualized returns.
- RFG has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| XMLV | RFG | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.25% | 0.35% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $750M | $329M |
| Since | 2013 | 2006 |
| Dividend yield | 2.80% | 0.34% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +10.0% | +31.2% |
| CAGR 3Y | +11.5% | +19.6% |
| CAGR 5Y | +6.1% | +7.9% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.63 | 0.81 |
| Volatility 1Y | 10.30% | 18.50% |
| Max drawdown | -39.86% | -42.92% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to XMLV and RFG
Explore further