BFOR vs. PWC

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BFOR (ALPS Barron's 400 ETF) and PWC (Invesco Dynamic Market ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - BFOR tracks the Barron's 400 Index while PWC tracks the Dynamic Market Intellidex Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BFOR returned 12.56%/yr vs 9.55%/yr for PWC. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BFOR charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for PWC.

Performance

BFOR vs. PWC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) and Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BFOR achieves a 16.49% return, which is significantly higher than PWC's 10.69% return. Over the past 10 years, BFOR has outperformed PWC with an annualized return of 12.56%, while PWC has yielded a comparatively lower 9.55% annualized return.

BFOR

• 1D: 1.26%
• 1M: 0.64%
• 6M: 11.32%
• YTD: 16.49%
• 1Y: 25.45%
• 3Y*: 18.22%
• 5Y*: 10.97%
• 10Y*: 12.56%
• ALL TIME*: 11.64%

PWC

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 3.19%
• 6M: 5.07%
• YTD: 10.69%
• 1Y: 14.63%
• 3Y*: 13.34%
• 5Y*: 7.35%
• 10Y*: 9.55%
• ALL TIME*: 2.96%

*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)
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF	$723.94K	$634.98K	$457.05K
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	$45.96K	$66.92K	$59.96K

BFOR vs. PWC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF	16.49%	13.85%	17.81%	18.19%	-15.92%	30.71%	17.60%	21.30%	-13.86%	19.37%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	10.69%	6.15%	17.46%	19.03%	-16.01%	19.38%	8.52%	13.47%	-6.40%	20.16%

Correlation

The correlation between BFOR and PWC is 0.62, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.77
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.85
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2013	0.86

Over the past year, the correlation between BFOR and PWC has dropped to 0.62 - well below their long-term average of 0.86, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

BFOR vs. PWC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BFOR	PWC
Financial Services	21.8%	16.9%
Technology	20.9%	14.2%
Industrials	16.4%	14.4%
Healthcare	11.9%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	7.4%
Energy	6.4%	5.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.0%	5.3%
Communication Services	3.5%	7.3%
Basic Materials	2.4%	5.5%
Utilities	1.8%	5.3%
Real Estate	-	5.3%

Return for Risk

BFOR vs. PWC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BFOR

BFOR Risk / Return Rank: 74
BFOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BFOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
BFOR Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BFOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
BFOR Martin Ratio Rank: 77

PWC

PWC Risk / Return Rank: 58
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 55
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

BFOR vs. PWC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) and Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC). 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.

	BFOR	PWC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	1.48	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	2.21	+0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.26	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.85	2.28	+0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.38	6.81	+3.57

BFOR vs. PWC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BFOR Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the PWC Sharpe Ratio of 1.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BFOR and PWC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BFOR vs. PWC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BFOR drawdown since its inception was -41.27%, smaller than the maximum PWC drawdown of -78.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFOR and PWC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BFOR	PWC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.27%	-78.13%	+36.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.98%	-6.45%	-2.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.91%	-15.12%	-6.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.93%	-26.58%	+0.65%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.27%	-39.45%	-1.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.29%	+1.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.36%	-35.96%	+29.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	2.15%	+0.31%

Volatility

BFOR vs. PWC - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) and Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) have volatilities of 3.31% and 3.26%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BFOR	PWC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.31%	3.26%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.68%	7.29%	+3.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.82%	9.97%	+4.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.41%	15.90%	+3.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.35%	18.74%	+1.61%

BFOR vs. PWC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BFOR has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than PWC's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BFOR vs. PWC - Dividend Comparison

BFOR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.51%, less than PWC's 1.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF	0.51%	0.60%	0.69%	1.26%	1.68%	0.92%	0.98%	0.69%	0.94%	0.60%	0.78%	0.86%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	1.71%	1.77%	1.58%	1.67%	1.51%	0.56%	1.09%	0.95%	1.44%	1.75%	1.35%	1.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BFOR and PWC in my portfolio?

BFOR and PWC have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BFOR or PWC?

BFOR has higher volatility (3.31%) compared to PWC (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BFOR dropped -41.27% vs PWC's -78.13%.

Which ETF is better, BFOR or PWC?

On 10-year performance, BFOR leads with 12.56% vs 9.55% for PWC. On fees, PWC is cheaper at 0.60% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BFOR or PWC?

Over the 10-year period, BFOR has performed better with a 12.56% return vs 9.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BFOR or PWC?

PWC is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for BFOR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BFOR or PWC?

PWC has the higher dividend yield at 1.71%, compared with 0.51% for BFOR.

What is the main difference between BFOR and PWC?

BFOR tracks Barron's 400 Index, while PWC tracks Dynamic Market Intellidex Index. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for BFOR and 0.60% for PWC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BFOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 1.48), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.