OMFS vs RESM
Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Small Cap ETF
Which is better, OMFS or RESM?
RESM costs less.
RESM has a lower expense ratio. OMFS is less concentrated, with 12.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 76.5%.
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 | OMFS | RESM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.32%Best |
| AUM | $264M | $6M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.30% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 2,228 | 2,051 |
| YTD Return | +8.89% | +13.69%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.32% | - |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.55% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.67% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 12.0%Best | 76.5% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Nov 8, 2017 | Dec 11, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
OMFS vs RESM 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
OMFS vs RESM Performance
Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFS) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Columbia Research Enhanced Small Cap ETF (RESM) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Year to date, OMFS is up 8.89% versus a gain of 13.69% for RESM.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
OMFS charges 0.39% per year while RESM charges 0.32%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $32 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, OMFS currently yields 1.30% against 0.08% for RESM.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 933 holdings in OMFS and 25 in RESM, totalling 96.5% and 100.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 933 positions we hold weights for in OMFS and 25 in RESM, against full books of 2,228 and 2,051.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 7 positions for RESM that do not appear in our book for OMFS (27.7% of the fund), and 883 for OMFS that do not appear in RESM (93.3%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of OMFS and RESM you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, OMFS or RESM?
OMFS has an expense ratio of 0.39% while RESM charges 0.32%. RESM is the cheaper option, by $7 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which pays a higher dividend, OMFS or RESM?
OMFS yields 1.30% while RESM yields 0.08%, so OMFS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RESM better than OMFS?
RESM has a lower expense ratio. OMFS is less concentrated, with 12.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 76.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.