RWL vs VYM
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, RWL or VYM?
Nearly the same fund. VYM costs less.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. RWL led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. RWL is less concentrated, with 23.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 26.1%.
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 | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $10.0B | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.20% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 507 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +14.84%Best | +10.96% |
| 1Y Return | +21.18%Best | +15.42% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.91%Best | +17.78% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.01%Best | +12.05% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.5% | 14.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -55.3% | -53.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,263Best | $17,663 |
| Top 10 Weight | 23.3%Best | 26.1% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Feb 19, 2008 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 22, 2008 to Sep 22, 2026 (18.6 years).
RWL vs VYM 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 18.6 years both funds cover.
RWL vs VYM Performance
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RWL returned +21.18% while VYM returned +15.42%. Year to date, RWL is up 14.84% versus a gain of 10.96% for VYM.
Over three years, RWL compounded at +19.91% per year against +17.78% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +14.01% and +12.05% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, RWL has the edge at +9.90% annualized vs +7.55%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RWL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.5% compared with 14.8% for VYM. 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 -55.3% for RWL and -53.6% for VYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. 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 VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $4 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RWL currently yields 1.20% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
54.7% of RWL's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 90.1% of VYM's money is in holdings RWL also owns.
Most of VYM is already inside RWL. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
248 positions in common, counted across the 496 positions we hold weights for in RWL and 557 in VYM, against full books of 507 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 281 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for RWL (7.3% of the fund), and 242 for RWL that do not appear in VYM (44.4%).
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 VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.37% | 7.35% | 6.98% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.61% | 3.82% | 2.21% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.74% | 2.63% | 0.89% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 2.11% | 1.52% | 0.59% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.53% | 2.51% | 1.98% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 1.09% | 1.66% | 0.57% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 1.02% | 1.48% | 0.46% |
| CVSCvs Corp | 1.92% | 0.54% | 1.38% |
| HDHome Depot Inc/The | 0.84% | 1.34% | 0.50% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.35% | 1.80% | 1.45% |
90.1% of VYM is already inside RWL.
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 VYM?
RWL has an expense ratio of 0.39% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $35 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RWL or VYM?
Over the past year RWL returned +21.18% vs +15.42% for VYM, so RWL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), RWL annualized +9.90% vs +7.55% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, RWL or VYM?
RWL has been the more volatile fund at 16.5% annualized versus 14.8% for VYM. Worst drawdown: RWL -55.3% vs VYM -53.6%.
Should I hold both RWL and VYM?
RWL and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 VYM?
90.1% of VYM's money is in holdings RWL also owns. 90.1% of VYM's is in holdings RWL also owns. They hold 248 positions in common, counted across the 496 positions we hold weights for in RWL and 557 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, RWL or VYM?
RWL yields 1.20% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than RWL?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. RWL led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. RWL is less concentrated, with 23.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 26.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.