Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

REMX vs RSP: how they differ

Over the year REMX returned more, +21.9% against +14.8%, and RSP charges 0.20% against 0.53%.

VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, REMX and RSP hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions REMX and RSP both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingREMXRSP
Albemarle Corp7.24%0.23%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in REMXOnly in RSP
Xiamen Tungsten Co Ltd 7.28%Intel Corp. 0.38%
China Northern Rare Earth Group High-Tec 7.06%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34%
PLS Group Ltd 6.84%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 0.33%
Lynas Rare Earths Ltd 6.80%ON Semiconductor Corp. 0.33%
MP Materials Corp 6.20%Sandisk Corp. 0.32%
Jinduicheng Molybdenum Co Ltd 5.94%Western Digital Corp. 0.31%
Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile SA 4.92%Ciena Corp. 0.30%
Almonty Industries Inc 4.80%Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 0.29%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

REMX and RSP on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
REMX
VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF
RSP
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF
Where it sitsThematic ETFCore index fund
IssuerVanEckInvesco
What it isMiners and metalsS&P 500 equal weight
Total return, 1 year+21.9%+14.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.4 pts−2.7 pts
Expense ratio0.53%0.20%
Already in the S&P 5007.2%99.1%
Holdings30503

REMX in plain words

By weight, 7% of REMX's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 61% of the fund across 30 positions, as filed for Jun 30, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +21.9% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 4.4 pts. It sits 67.6% below its all-time high of Apr 11, 2011.

RSP in plain words

RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, REMX or RSP?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, REMX returned +21.9% and RSP returned +14.8%, so REMX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, REMX or RSP?
REMX charges 0.53% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do REMX and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 7% of REMX and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Are REMX and RSP the same kind of fund?
No. REMX is a thematic ETF and RSP is an index ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

REMX against RSP, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, REMX against RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/REMX-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources