FLRG vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLRG (Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FLRG is passively managed, while GRW is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLRG charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

FLRG vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

FLRG

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 4.02%
• YTD: 9.13%
• 6M: 8.95%
• 1Y: 18.92%
• 3Y*: 19.48%
• 5Y*: 13.03%
• 10Y*: —

GRW

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

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

FLRG vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FLRG Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF	0.45%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FLRG and GRW is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	0.80

FLRG vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLRG	GRW
Technology	34.7%	26.6%
Financial Services	12.3%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	8.3%
Communication Services	10.3%	9.1%
Healthcare	9.2%	4.1%
Industrials	7.7%	38.1%
Energy	4.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	-
Basic Materials	2.5%	4.0%
Real Estate	2.1%	-
Utilities	1.2%	-

Return for Risk

FLRG vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLRG

FLRG Risk / Return Rank: 55
FLRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
FLRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
FLRG Omega Ratio Rank: 53
FLRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
FLRG Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

FLRG vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF (FLRG) 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.

	FLRG	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.88	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.67	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	—	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.46	—	—
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

	FLRG	GRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.88	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.04	14.00	-12.95

Drawdowns

FLRG vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLRG drawdown since its inception was -19.64%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLRG and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLRG	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.64%	-0.45%	-19.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.16%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.53%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.64%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.37%	-0.45%	+0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.74%	-0.14%	-3.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FLRG	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.42%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.57%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.14%	10.19%	-0.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.18%	10.19%	+4.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.02%	10.19%	+4.83%

FLRG vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLRG has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLRG vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

FLRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FLRG Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF	1.34%	1.42%	1.42%	1.39%	1.62%	1.36%	1.47%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLRG and GRW in my portfolio?

FLRG and GRW have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FLRG or GRW?

On fees, FLRG is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLRG or GRW?

FLRG is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

FLRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between FLRG and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for FLRG and 0.75% for GRW.