ALTL vs. GRW
ALTL (Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ALTL is passively managed, while GRW is actively managed. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ALTL charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.
Performance
ALTL vs. GRW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
ALTL
- 1D
- -0.66%
- 1M
- 12.43%
- YTD
- 16.90%
- 6M
- 16.56%
- 1Y
- 44.84%
- 3Y*
- 13.86%
- 5Y*
- 5.04%
- 10Y*
- —
GRW
- 1D
- -0.32%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ALTL vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
ALTL Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF | 2.86% |
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 1.29% |
Correlation
The correlation between ALTL 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 |
ALTL vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
ALTL
GRW
Utilities
-
Financial Services
Real Estate
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Industrials
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Technology
Basic Materials
Energy
-
Communication Services
Utilities
ALTL
GRW
-
Financial Services
ALTL
GRW
Real Estate
ALTL
GRW
-
Consumer Defensive
ALTL
GRW
-
Industrials
ALTL
GRW
Healthcare
ALTL
GRW
Consumer Cyclical
ALTL
GRW
Technology
ALTL
GRW
Basic Materials
ALTL
GRW
Energy
ALTL
GRW
-
Communication Services
ALTL
GRW
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
ALTL vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank
ALTL
GRW
ALTL vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF (ALTL) 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.
| ALTL | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.44 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.60 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.35 | — | — |
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
| ALTL | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.51 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.73 | 14.00 | -13.27 |
Drawdowns
ALTL vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ALTL drawdown since its inception was -31.91%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ALTL and GRW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ALTL | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.91% | -0.45% | -31.46% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.79% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.21% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.91% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.66% | -0.45% | -0.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.58% | -0.14% | -11.44% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.75% | — | — |
Volatility
ALTL vs. GRW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ALTL | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.26% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.97% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.05% | 10.19% | +7.86% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.38% | 10.19% | +8.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.09% | 10.19% | +9.90% |
ALTL vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison
ALTL has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
ALTL vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison
ALTL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ALTL Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF | 0.94% | 0.95% | 1.56% | 1.28% | 1.23% | 1.06% | 0.75% |
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ALTL 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.
On fees, ALTL is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ALTL is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.
ALTL has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.
They also come from different issuers: Pacer and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for ALTL and 0.75% for GRW.
Find the right allocation for ALTL and GRW
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