BBHL vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

BBHL (BBH Select Large Cap ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. BBHL is passively managed, while GRW is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BBHL charges 0.71%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

BBHL vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

BBHL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 4.47%
• 6M: 2.75%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GRW

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BBHL vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
BBHL BBH Select Large Cap ETF	-0.36%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	2.13%

Correlation

The correlation between BBHL and GRW is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026	0.87

Return for Risk

BBHL vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BBH Select Large Cap ETF (BBHL) 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.

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

Drawdowns

BBHL vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBHL drawdown since its inception was -11.99%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -3.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBHL and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	BBHL	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.99%	-3.83%	-8.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.41%	-1.84%	-0.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.87%	-1.04%	-1.83%

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BBHL	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.12%	18.65%	-5.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.12%	18.65%	-5.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.12%	18.65%	-5.53%

BBHL vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

BBHL has a 0.71% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BBHL vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

Neither BBHL nor GRW has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BBHL and GRW in my portfolio?

BBHL and GRW have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BBHL or GRW?

On fees, BBHL is cheaper at 0.71% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BBHL or GRW?

BBHL is cheaper with a 0.71% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

BBHL and GRW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between BBHL and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: BBH and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.71% for BBHL and 0.75% for GRW.