CZA vs. PRPFX

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and PRPFX (Permanent Portfolio Class I) are both funds - CZA is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while PRPFX is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Permanent Portfolio. CZA is passively managed, while PRPFX is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, CZA returned 10.77%/yr vs 10.40%/yr for PRPFX. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.81%/yr for PRPFX.

Performance

CZA vs. PRPFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and Permanent Portfolio Class I (PRPFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 9.13% return, which is significantly higher than PRPFX's 1.99% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CZA having a 10.77% annualized return and PRPFX not far behind at 10.40%.

CZA

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: 3.51%
• YTD: 9.13%
• 6M: 7.73%
• 1Y: 15.79%
• 3Y*: 13.41%
• 5Y*: 7.45%
• 10Y*: 10.77%

PRPFX

• 1D: -0.88%
• 1M: -3.80%
• YTD: 1.99%
• 6M: 0.49%
• 1Y: 16.73%
• 3Y*: 19.72%
• 5Y*: 10.86%
• 10Y*: 10.40%

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

CZA vs. PRPFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	9.13%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	27.42%	0.35%	32.27%	-8.89%	21.90%
PRPFX Permanent Portfolio Class I	1.99%	28.78%	19.36%	11.96%	-5.48%	10.87%	18.80%	19.20%	-7.02%	11.42%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and PRPFX is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2007	0.55

The correlation between CZA and PRPFX shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (1 year) to 0.62 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CZA vs. PRPFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 39
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 36
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 45

PRPFX

PRPFX Risk / Return Rank: 26
PRPFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
PRPFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
PRPFX Omega Ratio Rank: 30
PRPFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
PRPFX Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

CZA vs. PRPFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and Permanent Portfolio Class I (PRPFX). 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.

	CZA	PRPFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	1.31	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	1.66	+0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.26	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.72	1.94	-0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.60	5.09	+1.50

CZA vs. PRPFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is comparable to the PRPFX Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA and PRPFX, 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

CZA vs. PRPFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than PRPFX's maximum drawdown of -27.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and PRPFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	PRPFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-27.16%	-26.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.21%	-8.76%	-0.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-8.76%	-10.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	-15.49%	-3.43%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.18%	-20.84%	-25.34%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-8.76%	+8.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.86%	-3.52%	-3.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	3.33%	-0.93%

Volatility

CZA vs. PRPFX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is 2.95%, while Permanent Portfolio Class I (PRPFX) has a volatility of 3.71%. This indicates that CZA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PRPFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CZA	PRPFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	3.71%	-0.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.45%	11.67%	-2.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.78%	12.93%	-0.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	11.11%	+5.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.25%	10.67%	+8.58%

CZA vs. PRPFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than PRPFX's 0.81% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZA vs. PRPFX - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.43%, less than PRPFX's 3.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.43%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
PRPFX Permanent Portfolio Class I	3.20%	3.27%	1.86%	1.39%	1.58%	2.05%	5.38%	4.69%	6.90%	2.14%	0.95%	7.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZA and PRPFX in my portfolio?

CZA and PRPFX have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CZA or PRPFX?

PRPFX has higher volatility (3.71%) compared to CZA (2.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs PRPFX's -27.16%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PRPFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.31 vs 1.24), 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.