FELG vs. PFM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FELG (Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FELG is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past year, FELG returned 27.58% vs 19.65% for PFM. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FELG charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

FELG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF (FELG) 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, FELG achieves a 7.70% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 8.18% return.

FELG

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: 5.85%
• YTD: 7.70%
• 6M: 7.23%
• 1Y: 27.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

FELG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FELG Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF	7.70%	18.44%	35.45%	4.20%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	8.18%	14.00%	16.87%	5.22%

Correlation

The correlation between FELG and PFM is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 21, 2023	0.60

The correlation between FELG and PFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

FELG vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FELG	PFM
Technology	53.9%	24.7%
Communication Services	13.8%	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	4.0%
Industrials	7.2%	11.1%
Healthcare	6.3%	14.9%
Financial Services	4.7%	18.5%
Energy	1.1%	4.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.0%	12.0%
Basic Materials	0.5%	3.0%
Utilities	0.1%	4.2%
Real Estate	0.0%	2.0%

Return for Risk

FELG vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FELG

FELG Risk / Return Rank: 44
FELG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
FELG Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
FELG Omega Ratio Rank: 49
FELG Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
FELG Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

FELG vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF (FELG) 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.

	FELG	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	2.09	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	3.07	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.38	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.71	2.78	-1.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.86	11.28	-5.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FELG vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FELG Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FELG 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

	FELG	PFM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	2.09	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.79	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.32	0.53	+0.80

Drawdowns

FELG vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FELG drawdown since its inception was -23.89%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FELG and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FELG	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.89%	-53.21%	+29.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.17%	-7.09%	-9.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.50%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.81%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.34%	-0.23%	-1.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-6.94%	+3.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.72%	1.75%	+2.97%

Volatility

FELG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF (FELG) has a higher volatility of 3.50% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that FELG'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

	FELG	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.50%	2.04%	+1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.59%	7.13%	+4.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.46%	9.47%	+5.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.89%	13.54%	+6.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.89%	15.21%	+4.68%

FELG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FELG has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

FELG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

FELG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FELG Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF	0.34%	0.38%	0.44%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 FELG and PFM in my portfolio?

FELG and PFM have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FELG or PFM?

FELG has higher volatility (3.50%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FELG dropped -23.89% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, FELG or PFM?

On 1-year performance, FELG leads with 27.58% vs 19.65% for PFM. On fees, FELG is cheaper at 0.18% 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, FELG or PFM?

Over the 1-year period, FELG has performed better with a 27.58% return vs 19.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FELG or PFM?

FELG is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.34% for FELG.

What is the main difference between FELG and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for FELG and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.79), 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.