RSP Trailed IVV by $95,160 on $300,000 Over Five Years. Over One Year, It Led

Equal-weight investing sounds like a safer, more balanced approach to the S&P 500, but the five-year price tag on that logic will surprise you. The one-year verdict complicates the story even further.

The ETF Examiner desk. Editor: Ryne Mauck.

Read More: Learn 7 ways to generate income with a $1,000,000+ portfolio (sponsor)

This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.

Suppose you put $300,000 into the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (NYSEARCA:RSP) on October 22, 2021. By October 22, 2026, it had grown to $447,060, a 49.02% return. The same money in the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA:IVV), which tracks the S&P 500, reached $542,220, up 80.74%. The equal-weight holder finished $95,160 behind.

Now shorten the window. Over the one year ending October 22, 2026, RSP returned 15.77%, while IVV returned 15.04%. Year to date through the same day, RSP is up 14.84%, and IVV is up 12.88%. Same two funds, opposite verdicts.

IVV serves as the S&P 500 comparison. Both funds are measured on a dividend-adjusted basis over identical windows: October 22, 2021 to October 22, 2026 for five years, and the 12 months ending October 22, 2026. Distributions count on both sides.

That detail matters. A plain price comparison against some S&P 500 funds leaves out their dividends and skews the result. That is why this comparison uses a dividend-adjusted basis for both funds.

Equal weighting resets every company in the index to the same slice at each rebalance (the periodic trim back to target). The largest companies end up with a far smaller share than they hold in a fund weighted by company size. The smallest end up with far more.

The design tends to lag when a handful of the biggest companies drive the market. It tends to lead when the typical company outpaces the giants. That is a general description of how the design behaves; this article did not analyze what drove the past year and makes no claim about the cause.

Be fair to the five-year record first. A stretch dominated by the largest companies is the environment where equal weighting looks worst. RSP’s deficit reflects that environment.

That said, one year is a short window, and it does not undo a five-year deficit. The $95,160 gap already includes the past year’s outperformance.

Neither window tells you which approach will win from here. Investors who dumped RSP after five lagging years locked in the deficit just before the design started leading. Investors who pile in now after a single good year risk buying into the next stretch of underperformance. Both groups react to timing rather than design.

That is the hidden cost this series keeps finding. The window you pick decides the verdict. For a retiree drawing income, a switch made at the wrong moment can hurt more because there are fewer years left to recover.

Start with a different question: how concentrated do you want your S&P 500 exposure to be? Open each fund’s holdings page and check four things

Put an equal-weight fund and a cap-weighted fund side by side, and the difference in concentration shows up quickly. For longer windows on the same question, see our companion pieces: One of These S&P 500 Funds Has Trailed for 10 Years and Is Equal-Weighting the S&P 500 Worth It?

Pick your weighting the way you pick a stock-to-bond mix — once, deliberately, based on how much concentration you can tolerate. If you want your money to ride the largest companies, a cap-weighted fund like IVV does that by design. If owning a few giants makes you uneasy, equal weight spreads the risk, but the cost is long stretches of trailing when those giants lead. Choose concentration, then stick with it for a full market cycle. Judging either fund on its most recent year is how investors end up paying the gap twice.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.

Ryne Mauck is an investment writer covering exchange-traded funds, retirement planning, and portfolio strategy. Through his work at 24/7 Wall St. and other investment platforms, including Seeking Alpha, he aims to provide clear, research-driven insights that help investors make more informed decisions while maintaining a long-term approach to investing.

Ryne holds a B.Sc. in Finance and an M.A. in Political Science. He is a formerly registered Municipal Advisor Representative and has passed the Series 50, Series 63, and Series 65 exams. His articles are not intended to be, nor should they be interpreted as, financial advice.

The choice between the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (NYSEARCA:RSP) and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEARCA:SPY) looks trivial on a fund screener. You have the same 500 companies, both tracking the…

A fund owning thousands of stocks sounds like true diversification, but the math behind a $500,000 VTI position tells a more uncomfortable story about where your money actually goes.

Paying five times the fee of a passive utility fund sounds hard to justify, until you look at what the AI power buildout has done to the case for active management in a sector…

SCHD and SCHG split the same $300,000 in opposite directions depending on which measuring stick you pick, and the one most investors grab first may be the wrong one for their situation.

Two S&P 500 funds hold nearly identical stocks, yet their returns have drifted so far apart over a decade that the gap itself tells a story about what most investors misunderstand about diversification.

BlackRock's semiconductor fund has been quietly outpacing the one most chip investors default to, but the longer you look back at the numbers, the more complicated the story gets.

Two of the most popular dividend ETFs sit on the same shelf with similar names, but investors who treated them as interchangeable choices discovered a stunning gap in their account balances after just twelve…

SPY hands most of your money to a handful of giants, but one rival fund treats the smallest S&P 500 company as an equal to the largest. The tradeoff is stranger than it sounds,…

A $300,000 bet on a popular dividend ETF tells two completely different stories depending on which time window you look at, and understanding why reveals the hidden price every income investor quietly pays.