GGRW vs. PFM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GGRW (Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GGRW is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GGRW returned 9.85%/yr vs 10.63%/yr for PFM. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GGRW charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

GGRW vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GGRW achieves a 6.11% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 8.18% return.

GGRW

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: 4.23%
• YTD: 6.11%
• 6M: 5.58%
• 1Y: 17.42%
• 3Y*: 27.06%
• 5Y*: 9.85%
• 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%

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

GGRW vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GGRW Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF	6.11%	18.29%	41.78%	42.19%	-43.92%	5.40%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	8.18%	14.00%	16.87%	11.40%	-6.22%	21.34%

Correlation

The correlation between GGRW and PFM is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 17, 2021	0.63

The correlation between GGRW and PFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

GGRW vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GGRW	PFM
Technology	37.1%	24.7%
Communication Services	14.6%	1.1%
Industrials	10.9%	11.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	4.0%
Financial Services	9.3%	18.5%
Healthcare	8.1%	14.9%
Utilities	3.9%	4.2%
Basic Materials	1.2%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	0.7%	12.0%
Energy	-	4.7%
Real Estate	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

GGRW vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GGRW

GGRW Risk / Return Rank: 31
GGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
GGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
GGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 31
GGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
GGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 33

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 62
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

GGRW vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) 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.

	GGRW	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.19	2.09	-0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	3.07	-1.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.38	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.33	2.78	-1.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.00	11.28	-6.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GGRW vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGRW Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGRW and PFM, 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

	GGRW	PFM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.19	2.09	-0.90
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.39	0.79	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	0.53	-0.21

Drawdowns

GGRW vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGRW drawdown since its inception was -50.28%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGRW and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GGRW	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.28%	-53.21%	+2.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.19%	-7.09%	-6.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.53%	-14.50%	-6.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.28%	-17.81%	-32.47%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.90%	-0.23%	-0.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.39%	-6.94%	-10.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.49%	1.75%	+1.74%

Volatility

GGRW vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) has a higher volatility of 3.86% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that GGRW'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.

Volatility by Period

	GGRW	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.86%	2.04%	+1.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.64%	7.13%	+4.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.73%	9.47%	+5.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.33%	13.54%	+11.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.50%	15.21%	+10.29%

GGRW vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GGRW has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

GGRW vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

GGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GGRW Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF	0.40%	0.43%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both GGRW and PFM in my portfolio?

GGRW and PFM have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GGRW or PFM?

GGRW has higher volatility (3.86%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGRW dropped -50.28% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, GGRW or PFM?

On 5-year performance, PFM leads with 10.63% vs 9.85% for GGRW. On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, GGRW or PFM?

Over the 5-year period, PFM has performed better with a 10.63% return vs 9.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GGRW or PFM?

PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for GGRW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GGRW or PFM?

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.40% for GGRW.

What is the main difference between GGRW and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: GAMCO Investors, Inc. and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for GGRW and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.19), 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.