CLCG vs. PFM
CLCG (Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. CLCG is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLCG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.
Performance
CLCG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLCG achieves a 4.16% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 7.31% return.
CLCG
- 1D
- -0.38%
- 1M
- -2.85%
- YTD
- 4.16%
- 6M
- 2.34%
- 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%
CLCG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CLCG Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF | 4.16% | 8.42% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 7.31% | 6.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLCG and PFM is 0.59, 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 Jul 23, 2025 | 0.59 |
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
CLCG vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank
CLCG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
PFM
CLCG vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF (CLCG) 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.
| CLCG | 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
CLCG vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLCG drawdown since its inception was -16.32%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLCG and PFM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLCG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.32% | -53.21% | +36.89% |
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 | -5.61% | -1.12% | -4.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.84% | -6.93% | +3.09% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.75% | — |
Volatility
CLCG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLCG | 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 | 17.66% | 9.49% | +8.17% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.66% | 13.51% | +4.15% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.66% | 15.20% | +2.46% |
CLCG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison
CLCG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
CLCG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison
CLCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than PFM's 1.36% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLCG Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF | 0.06% | 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 | 1.36% | 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
CLCG and PFM have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CLCG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CLCG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.
PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.36%, compared with 0.06% for CLCG.
They also come from different issuers: Crossmark and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CLCG and 0.53% for PFM.
Find the right allocation for CLCG 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