CCOR vs. GRW
CCOR (Core Alternative ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.40, they often move in opposite directions. CCOR charges 1.09%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.
Performance
CCOR vs. GRW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
CCOR
- 1D
- 0.30%
- 1M
- -2.55%
- YTD
- -3.71%
- 6M
- -4.87%
- 1Y
- -5.97%
- 3Y*
- -2.34%
- 5Y*
- -2.56%
- 10Y*
- —
GRW
- 1D
- -0.32%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CCOR vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
CCOR Core Alternative ETF | -1.41% |
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 1.29% |
Correlation
The correlation between CCOR and GRW is -0.40, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026 | -0.40 |
CCOR vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CCOR
GRW
Financial Services
Technology
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Energy
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
Real Estate
-
Financial Services
CCOR
GRW
Technology
CCOR
GRW
Healthcare
CCOR
GRW
Consumer Cyclical
CCOR
GRW
Industrials
CCOR
GRW
Communication Services
CCOR
GRW
Energy
CCOR
GRW
-
Consumer Defensive
CCOR
GRW
-
Utilities
CCOR
GRW
-
Basic Materials
CCOR
GRW
Real Estate
CCOR
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
CCOR vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank
CCOR
GRW
CCOR vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Core Alternative ETF (CCOR) 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.
| CCOR | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.69 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.59 | — | — |
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
| CCOR | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.87 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.23 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.11 | 14.00 | -13.88 |
Drawdowns
CCOR vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CCOR drawdown since its inception was -22.99%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CCOR and GRW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CCOR | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.99% | -0.45% | -22.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.75% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.31% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.99% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -20.03% | -0.45% | -19.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.29% | -0.14% | -7.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.77% | — | — |
Volatility
CCOR vs. GRW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CCOR | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.78% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.96% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.93% | 10.19% | -3.26% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.10% | 10.19% | +0.91% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 10.75% | 10.19% | +0.56% |
CCOR vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison
CCOR has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is higher than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
CCOR vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison
CCOR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.11%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCOR Core Alternative ETF | 1.11% | 1.07% | 1.18% | 1.21% | 1.11% | 1.02% | 1.50% | 0.73% | 1.53% | 0.89% |
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CCOR 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, GRW is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GRW is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for CCOR.
CCOR has the higher dividend yield at 1.11%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.
They also come from different issuers: Core Alternative Capital and TCW. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for CCOR and 0.75% for GRW.
Find the right allocation for CCOR 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