GDMA vs. PWS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GDMA (Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF) and PWS (Pacer WealthShield ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GDMA is a Hedge Fund fund actively managed by Gadsden, while PWS is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the Pacer WealthShield Index. GDMA is actively managed, while PWS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GDMA returned 7.66%/yr vs 0.31%/yr for PWS. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GDMA charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for PWS.

Performance

GDMA vs. PWS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) and Pacer WealthShield ETF (PWS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GDMA achieves a 11.18% return, which is significantly higher than PWS's -2.18% return.

GDMA

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 1.83%
• YTD: 11.18%
• 6M: 14.08%
• 1Y: 32.26%
• 3Y*: 16.91%
• 5Y*: 7.66%
• 10Y*: —

PWS

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: -0.99%
• YTD: -2.18%
• 6M: -3.95%
• 1Y: 7.28%
• 3Y*: 7.37%
• 5Y*: 0.31%
• 10Y*: —

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

GDMA vs. PWS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	11.18%	25.29%	7.44%	1.72%	-2.08%	3.95%	21.08%	11.59%	-3.93%
PWS Pacer WealthShield ETF	-2.18%	8.05%	14.01%	-3.58%	-12.10%	14.43%	22.16%	1.36%	0.20%

Correlation

The correlation between GDMA and PWS is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2018	0.41

GDMA vs. PWS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GDMA	PWS
Technology	23.4%	20.6%
Financial Services	14.5%	-
Industrials	14.4%	19.0%
Energy	10.0%	0.0%
Basic Materials	9.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	19.7%
Communication Services	7.0%	0.2%
Healthcare	5.5%	39.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	-
Utilities	2.4%	0.8%
Real Estate	1.6%	-

Return for Risk

GDMA vs. PWS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GDMA

GDMA Risk / Return Rank: 74
GDMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GDMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
GDMA Omega Ratio Rank: 77
GDMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
GDMA Martin Ratio Rank: 65

PWS

PWS Risk / Return Rank: 21
PWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
PWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
PWS Omega Ratio Rank: 19
PWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
PWS Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

GDMA vs. PWS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) and Pacer WealthShield ETF (PWS). 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.

	GDMA	PWS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.47	0.64	+1.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.21	0.96	+2.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.12	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.30	1.06	+3.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.92	2.64	+9.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GDMA vs. PWS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GDMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is higher than the PWS Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GDMA and PWS, 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

	GDMA	PWS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.47	0.64	+1.83
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80	0.03	+0.77
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.89	0.29	+0.60

Drawdowns

GDMA vs. PWS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GDMA drawdown since its inception was -16.66%, smaller than the maximum PWS drawdown of -24.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GDMA and PWS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GDMA	PWS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.66%	-24.93%	+8.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.53%	-6.88%	-0.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.53%	-10.47%	+2.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-12.74%	-24.93%	+12.19%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.06%	-5.92%	+4.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.78%	-9.11%	+5.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.71%	2.76%	-0.05%

Volatility

GDMA vs. PWS - Volatility Comparison

Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF (GDMA) has a higher volatility of 6.18% compared to Pacer WealthShield ETF (PWS) at 2.64%. This indicates that GDMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PWS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GDMA	PWS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.18%	2.64%	+3.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.03%	7.18%	+2.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.12%	11.47%	+1.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.67%	11.93%	-2.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.97%	14.39%	-3.42%

GDMA vs. PWS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GDMA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than PWS's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

GDMA vs. PWS - Dividend Comparison

GDMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, more than PWS's 1.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
GDMA Gadsden Dynamic Multi-Asset ETF	2.51%	2.79%	2.32%	4.14%	1.18%	2.10%	0.62%	3.17%	0.00%
PWS Pacer WealthShield ETF	1.49%	1.59%	1.33%	2.21%	1.45%	0.94%	0.53%	1.77%	1.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GDMA and PWS in my portfolio?

GDMA and PWS have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GDMA or PWS?

GDMA has higher volatility (6.18%) compared to PWS (2.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GDMA dropped -16.66% vs PWS's -24.93%.

Which ETF is better, GDMA or PWS?

On 5-year performance, GDMA leads with 7.66% vs 0.31% for PWS. On fees, PWS is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, PWS has been the lower-risk option at 2.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GDMA or PWS?

Over the 5-year period, GDMA has performed better with a 7.66% return vs 0.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GDMA or PWS?

PWS is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for GDMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GDMA or PWS?

GDMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.51%, compared with 1.49% for PWS.

What is the main difference between GDMA and PWS?

GDMA is categorized as Hedge Fund, while PWS is Diversified Portfolio. They also come from different issuers: Gadsden and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for GDMA and 0.60% for PWS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GDMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 0.64), 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.