ARWG vs. PFM
ARWG (Archer Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ARWG is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ARWG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.
Performance
ARWG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ARWG achieves a 5.39% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 7.31% return.
ARWG
- 1D
- 0.20%
- 1M
- 4.19%
- YTD
- 5.39%
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PFM
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 7.31%
- 6M
- 6.16%
- 1Y
- 16.73%
- 3Y*
- 15.60%
- 5Y*
- 10.57%
- 10Y*
- 11.75%
ARWG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ARWG Archer Growth ETF | 5.39% | -0.95% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 7.31% | -0.79% |
Correlation
The correlation between ARWG and PFM is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 30, 2025 | 0.55 |
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
ARWG vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank
ARWG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
PFM
ARWG vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Archer Growth ETF (ARWG) 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.
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.
| ARWG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.32 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.37 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 9.58 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ARWG vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ARWG drawdown since its inception was -12.79%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ARWG and PFM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ARWG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.79% | -53.21% | +40.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -7.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.50% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -17.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.54% | -1.12% | -1.42% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.34% | -6.93% | +3.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.75% | — |
Volatility
ARWG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ARWG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.35% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 7.19% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.95% | 9.49% | +13.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.95% | 13.51% | +9.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.95% | 15.20% | +7.75% |
ARWG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison
ARWG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
ARWG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison
ARWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than PFM's 1.36% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ARWG Archer Growth ETF | 0.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 1.36% | 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
ARWG and PFM have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ARWG.
PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.36%, compared with 0.13% for ARWG.
They also come from different issuers: Archer Funds and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for ARWG and 0.53% for PFM.
Find the right allocation for ARWG 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