FORH vs. PWC

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

FORH (Formidable ETF) and PWC (Invesco Dynamic Market ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. FORH is actively managed, while PWC is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FORH returned 1.34%/yr vs 7.23%/yr for PWC. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FORH charges 1.19%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for PWC.

Performance

FORH vs. PWC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Formidable ETF (FORH) 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, FORH achieves a 0.28% return, which is significantly lower than PWC's 8.19% return.

FORH

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: -2.49%
• 6M: -3.93%
• YTD: 0.28%
• 1Y: 4.80%
• 3Y*: 2.42%
• 5Y*: 1.34%
• 10Y*: —

PWC

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 0.59%
• 6M: 4.86%
• YTD: 8.19%
• 1Y: 11.01%
• 3Y*: 12.43%
• 5Y*: 7.23%
• 10Y*: 9.34%

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

FORH vs. PWC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FORH Formidable ETF	0.28%	16.27%	-5.63%	-0.69%	-1.64%	-0.83%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	8.19%	6.15%	17.46%	19.03%	-16.01%	1.98%

Correlation

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

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 30, 2021	0.60

The correlation between FORH and PWC shifts across timeframes, from 0.40 (1 year) to 0.60 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FORH vs. PWC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FORH	PWC
Industrials	31.1%	17.2%
Healthcare	14.9%	9.7%
Basic Materials	12.9%	1.5%
Energy	11.5%	4.7%
Technology	8.2%	16.4%
Utilities	7.7%	5.3%
Consumer Cyclical	4.3%	11.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	4.9%
Real Estate	2.6%	5.5%
Financial Services	2.3%	15.3%
Communication Services	1.9%	6.6%

Return for Risk

FORH vs. PWC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FORH

FORH Risk / Return Rank: 14
FORH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
FORH Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
FORH Omega Ratio Rank: 13
FORH Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FORH Martin Ratio Rank: 13

PWC

PWC Risk / Return Rank: 39
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 36
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

FORH vs. PWC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Formidable ETF (FORH) 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.

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.

	FORH	PWC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.30	1.14	-0.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.52	1.69	-1.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.20	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	1.71	-1.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.68	5.11	-4.43

FORH vs. PWC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FORH Sharpe Ratio is 0.30, which is lower than the PWC Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FORH 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.

Drawdowns

FORH vs. PWC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FORH drawdown since its inception was -20.73%, smaller than the maximum PWC drawdown of -78.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FORH and PWC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FORH	PWC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.73%	-78.13%	+57.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.80%	-6.45%	-6.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.42%	-15.12%	-4.30%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.73%	-26.58%	+5.85%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.44%	-0.21%	-10.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.99%	-36.05%	+28.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.04%	2.16%	+4.88%

Volatility

FORH vs. PWC - Volatility Comparison

Formidable ETF (FORH) and Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) have volatilities of 2.82% and 2.86%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FORH	PWC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.82%	2.86%	-0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.13%	7.18%	+2.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.04%	9.74%	+6.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.04%	15.98%	+0.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.97%	18.72%	-2.75%

FORH vs. PWC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FORH has a 1.19% expense ratio, which is higher than PWC's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

FORH vs. PWC - Dividend Comparison

FORH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.82%, more than PWC's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FORH Formidable ETF	1.82%	1.82%	0.00%	3.88%	3.72%	0.69%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	1.75%	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 FORH and PWC in my portfolio?

FORH and PWC 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 is riskier, FORH or PWC?

PWC has higher volatility (2.86%) compared to FORH (2.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FORH dropped -20.73% vs PWC's -78.13%.

Which ETF is better, FORH or PWC?

On 5-year performance, PWC leads with 7.23% vs 1.34% for FORH. On fees, PWC is cheaper at 0.60% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FORH or PWC?

Over the 5-year period, PWC has performed better with a 7.23% return vs 1.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FORH or PWC?

PWC is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.19% for FORH.

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

FORH has the higher dividend yield at 1.82%, compared with 1.75% for PWC.

What is the main difference between FORH and PWC?

They also come from different issuers: Formidable and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 1.19% for FORH and 0.60% for PWC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 0.30), 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.