FLDZ vs. PWC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLDZ (RiverNorth Patriot ETF) and PWC (Invesco Dynamic Market ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. FLDZ is actively managed, while PWC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLDZ returned 13.19%/yr vs 13.71%/yr for PWC. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLDZ charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for PWC.

Performance

FLDZ vs. PWC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) and Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLDZ achieves a 4.32% return, which is significantly lower than PWC's 5.85% return.

FLDZ

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 4.32%
• 6M: 3.13%
• 1Y: 8.06%
• 3Y*: 13.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PWC

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 5.85%
• 6M: 6.04%
• 1Y: 8.50%
• 3Y*: 13.71%
• 5Y*: 6.10%
• 10Y*: 9.52%

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

FLDZ vs. PWC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	4.32%	6.66%	15.99%	12.15%	-11.99%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	5.85%	6.15%	17.46%	19.03%	-15.24%

Correlation

The correlation between FLDZ and PWC is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 4, 2022	0.88

The correlation between FLDZ and PWC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLDZ vs. PWC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLDZ	PWC
Financial Services	15.1%	14.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.8%	11.5%
Industrials	12.1%	10.3%
Utilities	11.9%	2.7%
Healthcare	11.7%	12.7%
Energy	11.5%	5.5%
Real Estate	8.3%	5.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	6.8%
Communication Services	4.6%	7.0%
Technology	3.4%	26.1%
Basic Materials	1.6%	3.5%

Return for Risk

FLDZ vs. PWC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLDZ

FLDZ Risk / Return Rank: 24
FLDZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FLDZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FLDZ Omega Ratio Rank: 20
FLDZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FLDZ Martin Ratio Rank: 28

PWC

PWC Risk / Return Rank: 25
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 22
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

FLDZ vs. PWC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) and Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC). 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.

	FLDZ	PWC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.72	0.88	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.10	1.33	-0.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.15	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	1.32	-0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.94	4.06	-0.12
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLDZ vs. PWC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLDZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is comparable to the PWC Sharpe Ratio of 0.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLDZ and PWC, 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

	FLDZ	PWC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72	0.88	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.38	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.34	0.11	+0.22

Drawdowns

FLDZ vs. PWC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLDZ drawdown since its inception was -19.54%, smaller than the maximum PWC drawdown of -78.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLDZ and PWC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLDZ	PWC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.54%	-78.13%	+58.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.25%	-6.45%	+0.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.43%	-15.12%	-2.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.58%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.72%	-2.37%	+0.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.98%	-36.21%	+30.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.05%	2.10%	-0.05%

Volatility

FLDZ vs. PWC - Volatility Comparison

RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) has a higher volatility of 2.57% compared to Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) at 2.14%. This indicates that FLDZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PWC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLDZ	PWC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.57%	2.14%	+0.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.63%	7.19%	+0.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.31%	9.75%	+1.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.91%	16.07%	+0.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.91%	18.81%	-1.90%

FLDZ vs. PWC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLDZ has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than PWC's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLDZ vs. PWC - Dividend Comparison

FLDZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.48%, less than PWC's 1.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	1.48%	1.54%	1.17%	1.39%	1.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	1.68%	1.77%	1.58%	1.67%	1.51%	0.56%	1.09%	0.95%	1.44%	1.75%	1.35%	1.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLDZ and PWC in my portfolio?

FLDZ and PWC have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLDZ or PWC?

FLDZ has higher volatility (2.57%) compared to PWC (2.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLDZ dropped -19.54% vs PWC's -78.13%.

Which ETF is better, FLDZ or PWC?

On 3-year performance, PWC leads with 13.71% vs 13.19% for FLDZ. On fees, PWC is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, PWC has been the lower-risk option at 2.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLDZ or PWC?

Over the 3-year period, PWC has performed better with a 13.71% return vs 13.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLDZ or PWC?

PWC is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLDZ or PWC?

PWC has the higher dividend yield at 1.68%, compared with 1.48% for FLDZ.

What is the main difference between FLDZ and PWC?

They also come from different issuers: RiverNorth and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for FLDZ and 0.60% for PWC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.88 vs 0.72), 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.