AFLG vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

AFLG (First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. AFLG is passively managed, while GRW is actively managed. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AFLG charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

AFLG vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

AFLG

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 3.43%
• YTD: 12.78%
• 6M: 12.48%
• 1Y: 25.69%
• 3Y*: 23.05%
• 5Y*: 12.99%
• 10Y*: —

GRW

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AFLG vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
AFLG First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF	0.41%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.46%

Correlation

The correlation between AFLG and GRW is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	0.40

AFLG vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AFLG	GRW
Technology	33.6%	26.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	8.3%
Communication Services	10.1%	9.1%
Financial Services	10.0%	9.8%
Industrials	9.4%	38.1%
Healthcare	7.8%	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	-
Utilities	4.1%	-
Real Estate	3.8%	-
Basic Materials	3.6%	4.0%
Energy	3.2%	-

Return for Risk

AFLG vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AFLG

AFLG Risk / Return Rank: 70
AFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
AFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
AFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 69
AFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
AFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 76

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AFLG vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) 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.

	AFLG	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.25	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.15	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.15	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.43	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AFLG	GRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.25	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	13.58	-12.84

Drawdowns

AFLG vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFLG drawdown since its inception was -35.84%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFLG and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFLG	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.84%	-0.45%	-35.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.19%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.49%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.48%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.17%	-0.27%	+0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.71%	-0.17%	-5.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.78%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	AFLG	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.77%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.81%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.47%	8.89%	+2.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.82%	8.89%	+6.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.19%	8.89%	+10.30%

AFLG vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFLG has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFLG vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

AFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AFLG First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF	0.70%	0.84%	0.53%	1.53%	1.52%	0.93%	1.28%	0.20%
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 AFLG and GRW in my portfolio?

AFLG and GRW have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, AFLG or GRW?

On fees, AFLG is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFLG or GRW?

AFLG is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

AFLG has the higher dividend yield at 0.70%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between AFLG and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for AFLG and 0.75% for GRW.