GFLW vs. PFM
GFLW (VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - GFLW tracks the Victory Free Cash Flow Growth Index while PFM tracks the NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GFLW returned 29.44% vs 19.65% for PFM. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GFLW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.
Performance
GFLW vs. PFM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GFLW achieves a 16.55% return, which is significantly higher than PFM's 8.18% return.
GFLW
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- 10.36%
- YTD
- 16.55%
- 6M
- 15.42%
- 1Y
- 29.44%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PFM
- 1D
- -0.23%
- 1M
- 3.40%
- YTD
- 8.18%
- 6M
- 7.73%
- 1Y
- 19.65%
- 3Y*
- 16.31%
- 5Y*
- 10.63%
- 10Y*
- 11.82%
GFLW vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
GFLW VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF | 16.55% | 18.40% | -6.12% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 8.18% | 14.00% | -3.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between GFLW and PFM is 0.64, 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 | 0.64 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2024 | 0.65 |
The correlation between GFLW and PFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
GFLW vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank
GFLW
PFM
GFLW vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (GFLW) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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.
| GFLW | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.55 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.95 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.38 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.98 | 2.78 | -0.80 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.72 | 11.28 | -4.56 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GFLW | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.53 | 2.09 | -0.55 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.79 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.78 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.78 | 0.53 | +0.25 |
Drawdowns
GFLW vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GFLW drawdown since its inception was -24.14%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFLW and PFM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GFLW | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.14% | -53.21% | +29.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.95% | -7.09% | -7.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.50% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -17.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.19% | -0.23% | +0.04% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.64% | -6.94% | +2.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.39% | 1.75% | +2.64% |
Volatility
GFLW vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison
VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF (GFLW) has a higher volatility of 5.44% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that GFLW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GFLW | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.44% | 2.04% | +3.40% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.94% | 7.13% | +7.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.30% | 9.47% | +9.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.57% | 13.54% | +11.03% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.57% | 15.21% | +9.36% |
GFLW vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison
GFLW has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
GFLW vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison
GFLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GFLW VictoryShares Free Cash Flow Growth ETF | 0.01% | 0.02% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 1.33% | 1.41% | 1.58% | 1.86% | 1.95% | 1.69% | 1.92% | 1.94% | 2.27% | 1.70% | 2.56% | 2.36% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GFLW and PFM have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GFLW has higher volatility (5.44%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GFLW dropped -24.14% vs PFM's -53.21%.
On 1-year performance, GFLW leads with 29.44% vs 19.65% for PFM. On fees, GFLW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, GFLW has performed better with a 29.44% return vs 19.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GFLW is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.
PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.01% for GFLW.
GFLW tracks Victory Free Cash Flow Growth Index, while PFM tracks NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. They also come from different issuers: Victory and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for GFLW and 0.53% for PFM.
PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.53), 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.
Find the right allocation for GFLW and PFM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer