FITZ vs. GRW
FITZ (Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.
Performance
FITZ vs. GRW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
FITZ
- 1D
- -0.75%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GRW
- 1D
- 0.42%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FITZ vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | -5.35% |
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 2.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between FITZ and GRW is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026 | 0.61 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FITZ vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF (FITZ) 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.
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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FITZ vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FITZ drawdown since its inception was -6.70%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -3.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FITZ and GRW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FITZ | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -6.70% | -3.83% | -2.87% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.70% | -1.84% | -4.86% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.80% | -1.04% | -2.76% |
Volatility
FITZ vs. GRW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FITZ | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.29% | 18.65% | -1.36% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.29% | 18.65% | -1.36% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.29% | 18.65% | -1.36% |
FITZ vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both FITZ and GRW have an expense ratio of 0.75%.
Dividends
FITZ vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison
Neither FITZ nor GRW has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
FITZ and GRW have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FITZ and GRW have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.
FITZ and GRW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Nicholas and TCW.
Find the right allocation for FITZ and GRW
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer