AESR vs. GRW

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

AESR (Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.67 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. AESR charges 1.46%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

AESR vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF (AESR) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

AESR

• 1D: 2.81%
• 1M: 0.70%
• 6M: 14.69%
• YTD: 18.80%
• 1Y: 28.16%
• 3Y*: 24.52%
• 5Y*: 13.83%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.16%

GRW

• 1D: 1.90%
• 1M: 2.06%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
AESR Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF	$661.39K	$632.83K	$1.86M
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	$187.76K	$126.78K	$210.20K

AESR vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
AESR Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF	0.15%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	6.50%

Correlation

The correlation between AESR and GRW is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026	0.67

AESR vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AESR	GRW
Technology	41.7%	26.9%
Communication Services	23.1%	7.9%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	7.5%
Industrials	9.1%	41.5%
Financial Services	6.5%	8.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	-
Healthcare	2.0%	3.7%
Energy	1.3%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	3.9%
Utilities	0.3%	-
Real Estate	0.3%	-

Return for Risk

AESR vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

AESR

AESR Risk / Return Rank: 60
AESR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
AESR Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
AESR Omega Ratio Rank: 51
AESR Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
AESR Martin Ratio Rank: 71

GRW

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

AESR vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF (AESR) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AESR	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.03	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.88	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.88	—	—

Drawdowns

AESR vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AESR drawdown since its inception was -31.06%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -4.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AESR and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	AESR	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.06%	-4.12%	-26.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.82%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.85%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.22%	0.00%	-3.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-1.67%	-4.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	AESR	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.68%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.54%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.45%	16.27%	+3.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.46%	16.27%	+2.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.67%	16.27%	+4.40%

AESR vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

AESR has a 1.46% expense ratio, which is higher than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

AESR vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

AESR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 19.37%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AESR Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF	19.37%	23.02%	0.17%	0.33%	0.73%	6.59%	1.06%	0.33%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AESR and GRW in my portfolio?

AESR and GRW have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, AESR or GRW?

On fees, GRW is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, AESR or GRW?

GRW is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.46% for AESR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AESR or GRW?

AESR has the higher dividend yield at 19.37%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between AESR and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: Regents Park and TCW. Their fees differ too: 1.46% for AESR and 0.75% for GRW.