GFLW vs. DARP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GFLW (VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF) and DARP (Grizzle Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GFLW is passively managed, while DARP is actively managed. Over the past year, GFLW returned 28.55% vs 68.50% for DARP. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GFLW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for DARP.

Performance

GFLW vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (GFLW) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GFLW achieves a 15.82% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 26.21% return.

GFLW

• 1D: -2.86%
• 1M: 5.19%
• YTD: 15.82%
• 6M: 13.88%
• 1Y: 28.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DARP

• 1D: -4.47%
• 1M: -1.76%
• YTD: 26.21%
• 6M: 25.50%
• 1Y: 68.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GFLW vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GFLW VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF	15.82%	18.40%	-5.88%
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	26.21%	40.19%	-2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between GFLW and DARP is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2024	0.82

The correlation between GFLW and DARP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GFLW vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

GFLW

GFLW Risk / Return Rank: 41
GFLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
GFLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GFLW Omega Ratio Rank: 39
GFLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
GFLW Martin Ratio Rank: 43

DARP

DARP Risk / Return Rank: 85
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 78
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

GFLW vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (GFLW) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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.

	GFLW	DARP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.37	2.77	-1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	3.19	-1.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.43	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.92	5.83	-3.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.45	20.69	-14.24

GFLW vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFLW Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 2.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFLW and DARP, 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

GFLW vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFLW drawdown since its inception was -24.14%, smaller than the maximum DARP drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFLW and DARP.

Drawdown Indicators

	GFLW	DARP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.14%	-30.27%	+6.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.95%	-11.82%	-3.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.86%	-5.59%	+2.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.55%	-4.64%	+0.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.43%	3.32%	+1.11%

Volatility

GFLW vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (GFLW) is 9.28%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 10.71%. This indicates that GFLW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GFLW	DARP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.28%	10.71%	-1.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.64%	19.20%	-2.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.88%	24.83%	-3.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.08%	26.48%	-1.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.08%	26.48%	-1.40%

GFLW vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

GFLW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

GFLW vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

GFLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, less than DARP's 0.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	0.34%	0.43%	1.93%	0.32%
GFLW VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF	0.01%	0.02%	0.01%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GFLW and DARP in my portfolio?

GFLW and DARP have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GFLW or DARP?

DARP has higher volatility (10.71%) compared to GFLW (9.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GFLW dropped -24.14% vs DARP's -30.27%.

Which ETF is better, GFLW or DARP?

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 68.50% vs 28.55% for GFLW. On fees, GFLW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, GFLW has been the lower-risk option at 9.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GFLW or DARP?

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 68.50% return vs 28.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GFLW or DARP?

GFLW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DARP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GFLW or DARP?

DARP has the higher dividend yield at 0.34%, compared with 0.01% for GFLW.

What is the main difference between GFLW and DARP?

They also come from different issuers: Victory and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for GFLW and 0.75% for DARP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.77 vs 1.37), 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.