CZAR vs. TDVG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CZAR (Themes Natural Monopoly ETF) and TDVG (T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. CZAR is passively managed, while TDVG is actively managed. Over the past year, CZAR returned 7.47% vs 19.23% for TDVG. Their 0.72 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CZAR charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for TDVG.

Performance

CZAR vs. TDVG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZAR achieves a 3.33% return, which is significantly lower than TDVG's 10.93% return.

CZAR

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 3.31%
• 6M: 2.62%
• YTD: 3.33%
• 1Y: 7.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.05%

TDVG

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 0.47%
• 6M: 9.09%
• YTD: 10.93%
• 1Y: 19.23%
• 3Y*: 14.55%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.28%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	$4.24K	$4.35K	$3.75K
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	$2.11M	$3.07M	$2.63M

CZAR vs. TDVG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	3.33%	13.32%	10.92%	3.83%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	10.93%	14.80%	13.45%	2.17%

Correlation

The correlation between CZAR and TDVG is 0.70, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2023	0.72

The correlation between CZAR and TDVG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

CZAR vs. TDVG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CZAR	TDVG
Technology	27.3%	27.4%
Industrials	21.3%	14.4%
Financial Services	17.8%	19.3%
Healthcare	8.8%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	6.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	6.6%
Communication Services	4.7%	0.8%
Energy	3.0%	4.5%
Basic Materials	2.8%	2.8%
Utilities	2.5%	3.2%
Real Estate	0.2%	1.5%

Return for Risk

CZAR vs. TDVG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CZAR

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

TDVG

TDVG Risk / Return Rank: 80
TDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
TDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
TDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 80
TDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
TDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 81

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CZAR vs. TDVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). 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.

	CZAR	TDVG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.48	1.87	-1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.76	2.69	-1.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.34	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.61	2.51	-1.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.73	10.48	-8.74

CZAR vs. TDVG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZAR Sharpe Ratio is 0.48, which is lower than the TDVG Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZAR and TDVG, 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

CZAR vs. TDVG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZAR drawdown since its inception was -13.38%, smaller than the maximum TDVG drawdown of -19.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZAR and TDVG.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZAR	TDVG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.38%	-19.20%	+5.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.54%	-7.24%	-2.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.02%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.20%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.92%	+0.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.27%	-3.67%	+1.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	1.73%	+1.64%

Volatility

CZAR vs. TDVG - Volatility Comparison

Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) has a higher volatility of 3.48% compared to T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) at 2.20%. This indicates that CZAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDVG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CZAR	TDVG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.48%	2.20%	+1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.39%	7.30%	+2.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.24%	9.74%	+2.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.85%	13.87%	+0.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.85%	13.81%	+1.04%

CZAR vs. TDVG - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZAR has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than TDVG's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZAR vs. TDVG - Dividend Comparison

CZAR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TDVG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	1.42%	1.47%	0.94%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	0.96%	1.00%	1.06%	1.31%	1.15%	0.80%	0.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZAR and TDVG in my portfolio?

CZAR and TDVG have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CZAR or TDVG?

CZAR has higher volatility (3.48%) compared to TDVG (2.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZAR dropped -13.38% vs TDVG's -19.20%.

Which ETF is better, CZAR or TDVG?

On 1-year performance, TDVG leads with 19.23% vs 7.47% for CZAR. On fees, CZAR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, TDVG has been the lower-risk option at 2.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZAR or TDVG?

Over the 1-year period, TDVG has performed better with a 19.23% return vs 7.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZAR or TDVG?

CZAR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for TDVG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CZAR or TDVG?

CZAR has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.96% for TDVG.

What is the main difference between CZAR and TDVG?

They also come from different issuers: Themes and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CZAR and 0.50% for TDVG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TDVG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 0.48), 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.