ACGR vs. PFM
ACGR (American Century Large Cap Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - ACGR tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index while PFM tracks the NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACGR returned 15.34%/yr vs 10.77%/yr for PFM. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACGR charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.
Performance
ACGR vs. PFM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ACGR having a 8.73% return and PFM slightly lower at 8.42%.
ACGR
- 1D
- -0.45%
- 1M
- 7.07%
- YTD
- 8.73%
- 6M
- 8.10%
- 1Y
- 26.66%
- 3Y*
- 21.94%
- 5Y*
- 15.34%
- 10Y*
- —
PFM
- 1D
- 0.70%
- 1M
- 2.91%
- YTD
- 8.42%
- 6M
- 8.74%
- 1Y
- 20.61%
- 3Y*
- 16.39%
- 5Y*
- 10.77%
- 10Y*
- 11.85%
ACGR vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACGR American Century Large Cap Growth ETF | 8.73% | 14.50% | 26.66% | 43.24% | -30.13% | 39.24% | 11.27% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 8.42% | 14.00% | 16.87% | 11.40% | -6.22% | 23.08% | 7.05% |
Correlation
The correlation between ACGR and PFM is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.59 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.64 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.72 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2020 | 0.62 |
The correlation between ACGR and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (1 year) to 0.72 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ACGR vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank
ACGR
PFM
ACGR vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Century Large Cap Growth ETF (ACGR) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
| ACGR | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.74 | 2.19 | -0.45 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.37 | 3.21 | -0.83 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.40 | -0.10 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.71 | 2.96 | -1.25 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.83 | 12.03 | -6.20 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ACGR | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.74 | 2.19 | -0.45 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.72 | 0.80 | -0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.78 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.71 | 0.53 | +0.18 |
Drawdowns
ACGR vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ACGR drawdown since its inception was -34.54%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACGR and PFM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ACGR | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.54% | -53.21% | +18.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.84% | -7.09% | -8.75% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.58% | -14.50% | -10.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -34.54% | -17.81% | -16.73% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.45% | 0.00% | -0.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.50% | -6.94% | -1.56% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.66% | 1.75% | +2.91% |
Volatility
ACGR vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison
American Century Large Cap Growth ETF (ACGR) has a higher volatility of 3.35% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.19%. This indicates that ACGR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ACGR | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.35% | 2.19% | +1.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.88% | 7.19% | +4.69% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.43% | 9.47% | +5.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.50% | 13.54% | +7.96% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.42% | 15.21% | +6.21% |
ACGR vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison
ACGR has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
ACGR vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison
ACGR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACGR American Century Large Cap Growth ETF | 0.09% | 0.11% | 0.23% | 0.37% | 0.48% | 0.58% | 1.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 1.33% | 1.41% | 1.58% | 1.86% | 1.95% | 1.69% | 1.92% | 1.94% | 2.27% | 1.70% | 2.56% | 2.36% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ACGR and PFM have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ACGR has higher volatility (3.35%) compared to PFM (2.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACGR dropped -34.54% vs PFM's -53.21%.
On 5-year performance, ACGR leads with 15.34% vs 10.77% for PFM. On fees, ACGR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ACGR has performed better with a 15.34% return vs 10.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ACGR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.
PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.09% for ACGR.
ACGR tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while PFM tracks NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. They also come from different issuers: American Century and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ACGR and 0.53% for PFM.
PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 1.74), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for ACGR and PFM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer