CGGG vs. PFM

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

CGGG (Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. CGGG is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past year, CGGG returned 6.68% vs 17.10% for PFM. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGGG charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

CGGG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGGG achieves a -0.82% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 9.51% return.

CGGG

• 1D: -1.58%
• 1M: 0.95%
• 6M: -3.09%
• YTD: -0.82%
• 1Y: 6.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PFM

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 1.28%
• 6M: 6.72%
• YTD: 9.51%
• 1Y: 17.10%
• 3Y*: 15.34%
• 5Y*: 10.70%
• 10Y*: 11.38%

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

CGGG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CGGG Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF	-0.82%	10.90%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	9.51%	9.40%

Correlation

The correlation between CGGG and PFM is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2025	0.59

The correlation between CGGG and PFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CGGG vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CGGG

CGGG Risk / Return Rank: 15
CGGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
CGGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
CGGG Omega Ratio Rank: 15
CGGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
CGGG Martin Ratio Rank: 16

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 70
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 72
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CGGG vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) 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.

	CGGG	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.36	1.83	-1.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.62	2.68	-2.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.33	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	2.42	-2.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.23	9.83	-8.60

CGGG vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGGG Sharpe Ratio is 0.36, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGGG and PFM, 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

CGGG vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGGG drawdown since its inception was -17.75%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGGG and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGGG	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.75%	-53.21%	+35.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.75%	-7.09%	-10.66%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.69%	-0.15%	-4.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.86%	-6.91%	+3.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.44%	1.74%	+3.70%

Volatility

CGGG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF (CGGG) has a higher volatility of 6.72% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that CGGG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGGG	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.72%	2.04%	+4.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.12%	7.11%	+8.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.58%	9.40%	+9.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.35%	13.49%	+4.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.35%	15.18%	+3.17%

CGGG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGGG has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGGG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

CGGG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGGG Capital Group U.S. Large Growth ETF	0.09%	0.07%	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	1.33%	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

Can I hold both CGGG and PFM in my portfolio?

CGGG and PFM have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGGG or PFM?

CGGG has higher volatility (6.72%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGGG dropped -17.75% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, CGGG or PFM?

On 1-year performance, PFM leads with 17.10% vs 6.68% for CGGG. On fees, CGGG is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGGG or PFM?

Over the 1-year period, PFM has performed better with a 17.10% return vs 6.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGGG or PFM?

CGGG is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGGG or PFM?

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.09% for CGGG.

What is the main difference between CGGG and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CGGG and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 0.36), 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.