PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CWS vs. DARP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CWS vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWS achieves a -1.80% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 32.67% return.


CWS

1D
-0.02%
1M
-0.37%
YTD
-1.80%
6M
-1.31%
1Y
-0.99%
3Y*
10.25%
5Y*
8.16%
10Y*

DARP

1D
-0.76%
1M
8.18%
YTD
32.67%
6M
34.22%
1Y
82.62%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWS vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
CWS
AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF
-1.80%6.43%9.82%9.45%
DARP
Grizzle Growth ETF
32.67%40.19%24.63%6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between CWS and DARP is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.39

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 29, 2023

0.46

CWS vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CWS
DARP

Healthcare

25.1%
1.4%

Industrials

22.4%
12.0%

Technology

18.5%
45.8%

Consumer Cyclical

15.1%
6.6%

Financial Services

10.8%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.2%

-

Utilities

4.0%
5.4%

Basic Materials

-

4.7%

Communication Services

-

19.4%

Energy

-

9.9%

Real Estate

-

-

Healthcare

CWS
25.1%
DARP
1.4%

Industrials

CWS
22.4%
DARP
12.0%

Technology

CWS
18.5%
DARP
45.8%

Consumer Cyclical

CWS
15.1%
DARP
6.6%

Financial Services

CWS
10.8%
DARP

-

Consumer Defensive

CWS
4.2%
DARP

-

Utilities

CWS
4.0%
DARP
5.4%

Basic Materials

CWS

-

DARP
4.7%

Communication Services

CWS

-

DARP
19.4%

Energy

CWS

-

DARP
9.9%

Real Estate

CWS

-

DARP

-

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

CWS vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

CWS
CWS Risk / Return Rank: 88
Overall Rank
CWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWS Omega Ratio Rank: 77
Omega Ratio Rank
CWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWS Martin Ratio Rank: 88
Martin Ratio Rank

DARP
DARP Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CWS vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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.


CWSDARPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.67

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-4.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.00

1.54

-0.55

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.08

7.03

-7.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.22

26.75

-26.97

CWS vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWS Sharpe Ratio is -0.08, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 3.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWS and DARP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CWSDARPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.08

3.59

-3.67

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.67

1.49

-0.82

Drawdowns

CWS vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWS drawdown since its inception was -33.82%, which is greater than DARP's maximum drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWS and DARP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CWSDARPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.82%

-30.27%

-3.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.92%

-11.82%

-0.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.87%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.21%

-0.76%

-5.45%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.54%

-4.64%

+0.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.61%

3.10%

+1.51%

Volatility

CWS vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) is 3.27%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 7.07%. This indicates that CWS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CWSDARPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.27%

7.07%

-3.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.29%

17.49%

-7.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.28%

23.16%

-9.88%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.66%

26.11%

-10.45%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.91%

26.11%

-9.20%

CWS vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWS has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.


Dividends

CWS vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

CWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than DARP's 0.33% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
CWS
AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF
0.31%0.31%0.59%0.25%0.50%0.16%0.27%0.39%2.07%0.29%0.03%
DARP
Grizzle Growth ETF
0.33%0.43%1.93%0.32%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CWS and DARP have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

DARP has higher volatility (7.07%) compared to CWS (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWS dropped -33.82% vs DARP's -30.27%.

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 82.62% vs -0.99% for CWS. On fees, DARP is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, CWS has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 82.62% return vs -0.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

DARP is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for CWS.

DARP has the higher dividend yield at 0.33%, compared with 0.31% for CWS.

They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for CWS and 0.75% for DARP.

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs -0.07), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWS and DARP

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