CWS vs. PFM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CWS (AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. CWS is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CWS returned 8.16%/yr vs 10.63%/yr for PFM. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWS charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

CWS vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) 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, CWS achieves a -1.80% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 8.18% return.

CWS

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

PFM

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 3.40%
• YTD: 8.18%
• 6M: 7.73%
• 1Y: 19.65%
• 3Y*: 16.31%
• 5Y*: 10.63%
• 10Y*: 11.82%

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

CWS vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	-1.80%	6.43%	9.82%	25.06%	-10.42%	22.20%	17.12%	30.97%	-6.46%	20.92%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	8.18%	14.00%	16.87%	11.40%	-6.22%	23.08%	9.53%	26.88%	-4.58%	17.65%

Correlation

The correlation between CWS and PFM is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2016	0.78

The correlation between CWS and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (1 year) to 0.84 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CWS vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CWS	PFM
Healthcare	25.1%	14.9%
Industrials	22.4%	11.1%
Technology	18.5%	24.7%
Consumer Cyclical	15.1%	4.0%
Financial Services	10.8%	18.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	12.0%
Utilities	4.0%	4.2%
Basic Materials	-	3.0%
Communication Services	-	1.1%
Energy	-	4.7%
Real Estate	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

CWS vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CWS

CWS Risk / Return Rank: 8
CWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
CWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
CWS Omega Ratio Rank: 7
CWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
CWS Martin Ratio Rank: 8

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 62
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	CWS	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.08	2.09	-2.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.01	3.07	-3.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.38	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.08	2.78	-2.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.22	11.28	-11.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CWS vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWS Sharpe Ratio is -0.08, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWS 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CWS	PFM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.08	2.09	-2.16
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52	0.79	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.53	+0.14

Drawdowns

CWS vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWS drawdown since its inception was -33.82%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWS and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CWS	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.82%	-53.21%	+19.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.92%	-7.09%	-4.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.56%	-14.50%	-2.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.87%	-17.81%	-7.06%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.21%	-0.23%	-5.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.54%	-6.94%	+2.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.61%	1.75%	+2.86%

Volatility

CWS vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) has a higher volatility of 3.27% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that CWS'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

	CWS	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.27%	2.04%	+1.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.29%	7.13%	+3.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.28%	9.47%	+3.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.66%	13.54%	+2.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.91%	15.21%	+1.70%

CWS vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWS has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWS vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

CWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	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 CWS and PFM in my portfolio?

CWS and PFM have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CWS or PFM?

CWS has higher volatility (3.27%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWS dropped -33.82% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, CWS or PFM?

On 5-year performance, PFM leads with 10.63% vs 8.16% for CWS. On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% 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, CWS or PFM?

Over the 5-year period, PFM has performed better with a 10.63% return vs 8.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CWS or PFM?

PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for CWS.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.31% for CWS.

What is the main difference between CWS and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for CWS and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 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.