RSP’s One-Year Win Does Not Erase IVV’s Five-Year Lead

Equal weighting has finally had a better year, but the longer record still shows the cost of betting against the largest U.S. companies.

A $300,000 investment in the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF, or RSP, on October 22, 2021 would have grown to $447,060 by October 22, 2026, based on the source's dividend-adjusted figures. The same amount in the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF, or IVV, would have reached $542,220. That is a $95,160 gap after five years.

The shorter window points the other way. RSP returned 15.77% over the year through October 22, 2026, compared with 15.04% for IVV. Year to date, the source calculated gains of 14.84% for RSP and 12.88% for IVV. BlackRock's official IVV page showed a 12.95% NAV total return through October 22, a small difference that likely reflects the data series and calculation convention. Investors should use one provider and one return basis when comparing funds.

The result is not a contradiction. It is the effect of two different weighting rules. S&P Dow Jones Indices defines an equal-weighted index as one that resets each constituent to the same weight at a rebalance. A cap-weighted index gives larger companies more influence. When a handful of giants lead, IVV benefits. When performance broadens across the typical S&P 500 company, RSP has more room to catch up.

That distinction also changes cost and concentration. IVV's official page listed a 0.03% expense ratio and 37.86% of the portfolio in information technology as of October 23, 2026. Its top positions therefore matter much more to its return than they do in RSP. Equal weighting reduces single-company concentration, but it also creates more turnover and a persistent tilt toward the smaller companies inside the S&P 500.

The five-year gap should not be read as proof that cap weighting will keep winning, just as RSP's latest one-year lead does not establish a new cycle. Both windows are backward-looking. The decision is whether an investor wants the market's largest companies to set portfolio weights or prefers a systematic rebalance that sells relative winners and adds to relative laggards.

For a core holding, consistency matters more than chasing the most recent winner. Switching after a long period of underperformance can crystallize the old strategy's lag just as leadership changes. The return figures show what each design delivered; they do not settle which design fits a particular investor.