EMLP vs RPV: how they differ

EMLP and RPV hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and RPV returned +22.2% over the year. First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund and Invesco S&P 500 Pure Value ETF.

RPV costs 0.60 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 7.4 points; EMLP is 2.5 times larger.

EMLPRPV
Expense ratio0.95%0.35%
Net assets$4.1bn$1.7bn
Total return, 1 year+14.8%+22.2%
Holdings in common1%
Nasdaq-100, total return, 1 year+23.6%
Top ten holdings, share of the fund42.7%22.6%
Below its high4.8%, high on Jul 23, 20264.4%, high on Sep 3, 2026

Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 8, 2026 and Oct 9, 2026.

+14.8%
EMLP total return, 1 year
+22.2%
RPV total return, 1 year
0.95%
EMLP expense ratio
0.35%
RPV expense ratio

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, EMLP and RPV hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Oct 8, 2026 and Oct 9, 2026.

half

1% in common

Positions both hold, largest shared weight first
Holding EMLP RPV
PG&E Corporation 0.50% 0.62%
ONEOK, Inc. 2.31% 0.45%
Exelon Corporation 0.25% 0.34%
Only in EMLP
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. 8.62%
Energy Transfer LP 7.58%
MPLX LP 4.26%
Plains GP Holdings, L.P. (Class A) 3.91%
Kinder Morgan, Inc. 3.88%
National Fuel Gas Company 3.88%
PPL Corporation 2.88%
The Southern Company 2.83%
Only in RPV
Centene Corp 2.69%
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co 2.52%
Valero Energy Corp 2.39%
Humana Inc 2.36%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co 2.34%
Phillips 66 2.19%
Bunge Global SA 2.17%
Marathon Petroleum Corp 2.14%

Check overlap with more funds →

On the same fields

EMLP
First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund
RPV
Invesco S&P 500 Pure Value ETF
Where it sits Stock ETF Stock ETF
What it is Actively managed Tracks an index
Total return, 1 year +14.8% +22.2%
S&P 500 over the same days +17.3% +17.3%
Gap to the S&P 500 −2.5 pts +5.0 pts
Expense ratio 0.95% 0.35%
Already in the S&P 500 42.9% 99.1%
Holdings 58 120
Net assets $4.1bn $1.7bn

EMLP and RPV on the fields both publish, as of Oct 9, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

EMLP in plain words

EMLP is actively managed and tracks no index. Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.3% for the S&P 500 and +23.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.95% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 9, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 58 positions, with the top ten at 42.7%. It sat 4.8% below its high of Jul 23, 2026 on Oct 9, 2026.

RPV in plain words

RPV tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +22.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.3% for the S&P 500 and +23.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 8, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 120 positions, with the top ten at 22.6%. It sat 4.4% below its high of Sep 3, 2026 on Oct 9, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, EMLP or RPV?
In the year to Oct 9, 2026, with distributions reinvested, EMLP returned +14.8% and RPV +22.2%.
Which is cheaper, EMLP or RPV?
RPV is cheaper, by 0.60 percentage points a year. On $10,000 held for a year that difference is about $60. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do EMLP and RPV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 43% of EMLP and 99% of RPV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds.
Other comparisons
Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure; a link is not an endorsement. A comparison is not a recommendation.

How this is computed

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed.

Cite this page

ETFIQ, EMLP against RPV, data as of Oct 9, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/emlp-vs-rpv

Open data

Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.