FDIF vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDIF (Fidelity Disruptors ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FDIF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

FDIF vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FDIF

• 1D: -0.90%
• 1M: 5.86%
• YTD: 10.12%
• 6M: 10.33%
• 1Y: 22.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GRW

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDIF vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	1.36%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FDIF and GRW is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	0.40

FDIF vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDIF	GRW
Technology	38.5%	26.6%
Healthcare	17.8%	4.1%
Communication Services	13.8%	9.1%
Industrials	12.0%	38.1%
Financial Services	11.8%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	6.1%	8.3%
Real Estate	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	4.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FDIF vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDIF

FDIF Risk / Return Rank: 36
FDIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FDIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FDIF Omega Ratio Rank: 36
FDIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
FDIF Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

FDIF vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). 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.

	FDIF	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.35	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.55	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.86	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FDIF	GRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.35	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.93	14.00	-13.07

Drawdowns

FDIF vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDIF drawdown since its inception was -22.63%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIF and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDIF	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.63%	-0.45%	-22.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.90%	-0.45%	-0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-0.14%	-3.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.91%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FDIF	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.11%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.37%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.02%	10.19%	+6.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.59%	10.19%	+8.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.59%	10.19%	+8.40%

FDIF vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDIF has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDIF vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

FDIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.30%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	0.30%	0.36%	0.35%	0.21%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDIF and GRW in my portfolio?

FDIF and GRW have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FDIF or GRW?

On fees, FDIF is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDIF or GRW?

FDIF is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDIF or GRW?

FDIF has the higher dividend yield at 0.30%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between FDIF and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FDIF and 0.75% for GRW.