RWL vs VOO
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, RWL or VOO?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. RWL led over 1Y and 5Y, VOO over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. RWL is less concentrated, with 23.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | RWL | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $10.0B | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.20% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 507 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +14.84%Best | +14.14% |
| 1Y Return | +21.18%Best | +17.31% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.91% | +23.04%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.01%Best | +13.63% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.3% | 14.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -36.5% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,263Best | $18,944 |
| Top 10 Weight | 23.3%Best | 37.6% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 19, 2008 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 9, 2010 to Sep 22, 2026 (16 years).
RWL vs VOO growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 16 years both funds cover.
RWL vs VOO Performance
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RWL returned +21.18% while VOO returned +17.31%. Year to date, RWL is up 14.84% versus a gain of 14.14% for VOO.
Over three years, RWL compounded at +19.91% per year against +23.04% for VOO; over five years the annualized figures are +14.01% and +13.63% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, VOO has the edge at +13.49% annualized vs +12.82%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RWL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.3% compared with 14.1% for VOO. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -36.5% for RWL and -34.3% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RWL charges 0.39% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $3 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RWL currently yields 1.20% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
98.6% of RWL's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 97.3% of VOO's money is in holdings RWL also owns.
Most of RWL is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
482 positions in common, counted across the 496 positions we hold weights for in RWL and 494 in VOO, against full books of 507 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 10 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for RWL (2.1% of the fund), and 12 for RWL that do not appear in VOO (0.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in RWL | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.41% | 7.05% | 4.64% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 1.37% | 7.55% | 6.18% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.98% | 4.13% | 0.15% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.00% | 5.36% | 3.36% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 0.99% | 3.24% | 2.25% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 3.11% | 0.76% | 2.35% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 0.99% | 2.62% | 1.63% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 1.92% | 1.46% | 0.46% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.37% | 2.86% | 2.49% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.61% | 1.46% | 0.15% |
98.6% of RWL is already inside VOO.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, RWL or VOO?
RWL has an expense ratio of 0.39% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RWL or VOO?
Over the past year RWL returned +21.18% vs +17.31% for VOO, so RWL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), RWL annualized +12.82% vs +13.49% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, RWL or VOO?
RWL has been the more volatile fund at 14.3% annualized versus 14.1% for VOO. Worst drawdown: RWL -36.5% vs VOO -34.3%.
Should I hold both RWL and VOO?
RWL and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between RWL and VOO?
98.6% of RWL's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 97.3% of VOO's is in holdings RWL also owns. They hold 482 positions in common, counted across the 496 positions we hold weights for in RWL and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, RWL or VOO?
RWL yields 1.20% while VOO yields 1.04%, so RWL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than RWL?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. RWL led over 1Y and 5Y, VOO over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. RWL is less concentrated, with 23.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.