Is Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) a Strong ETF Right Now?

The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS), a $256.26 million smart beta fund, provides equal-weighted exposure to the consumer staples sector at a 0.40% expense ratio. As of July 29, 2025, RSPS has returned 1.54% year-to-date but is down 1.47% over the past 12 months. While offering a distinct equal-weight methodology and relatively concentrated portfolio of 40 holdings, RSPS competes with significantly larger and lower-cost market-cap weighted alternatives such as the Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC) and Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP), which feature expense ratios of 0.09% and 0.08% respectively.

Analysis

The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) is a smart beta fund offering a distinct, non-market-cap weighted exposure to the consumer staples sector. With $256.26 million in assets, it employs an equal-weighting methodology across its approximately 40 holdings, resulting in a more concentrated portfolio compared to broader peers and giving smaller-cap names in the index the same influence as larger ones. This strategy is positioned as a way to potentially enhance risk-return performance. However, the fund's recent results show a modest 1.54% year-to-date gain and a decline of 1.47% over the last 12 months as of July 29, 2025. While its low beta of 0.52 indicates lower market volatility, its primary challenge lies in its cost structure. The 0.40% expense ratio is substantially higher than the 0.08%-0.09% fees charged by its significantly larger, market-cap weighted competitors, the Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) and the Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC), creating a significant hurdle for delivering superior net returns.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Investors specifically seeking an equal-weighted strategy to avoid concentration in consumer staples mega-caps could consider RSPS, but must be willing to accept a materially higher expense ratio for this tactical exposure.
• Given the fund's negative 12-month performance, it may be prudent to wait for evidence that its equal-weight strategy can consistently outperform cheaper, market-cap weighted alternatives before initiating a new position.
• For investors prioritizing low costs and broad sector exposure, the significantly larger and cheaper competitor funds XLP and VDC represent more conventional and cost-effective core holdings.