GK vs. CWS

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

GK (AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF) and CWS (AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds from AdvisorShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GK returned 2.34%/yr vs 8.67%/yr for CWS. Their 0.65 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GK charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for CWS.

Performance

GK vs. CWS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF (GK) and AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GK achieves a 12.37% return, which is significantly higher than CWS's 4.18% return.

GK

• 1D: 1.82%
• 1M: -0.91%
• 6M: 11.15%
• YTD: 12.37%
• 1Y: 17.72%
• 3Y*: 17.67%
• 5Y*: 2.34%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.85%

CWS

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 4.21%
• 6M: 3.86%
• YTD: 4.18%
• 1Y: 5.45%
• 3Y*: 9.55%
• 5Y*: 8.67%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.73%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	$278.34K	$348.09K	$721.15K
GK AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF	$27.34K	$30.78K	$45.67K

GK vs. CWS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GK AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF	12.37%	17.78%	20.10%	21.19%	-42.76%	4.61%
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	4.18%	6.43%	9.82%	25.06%	-10.42%	13.52%

Correlation

The correlation between GK and CWS is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.57
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2021	0.65

The correlation between GK and CWS shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (1 year) to 0.65 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GK vs. CWS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GK	CWS
Technology	38.4%	19.0%
Industrials	16.1%	24.0%
Communication Services	15.4%	-
Healthcare	10.0%	26.7%
Financial Services	7.9%	11.1%
Utilities	4.6%	4.1%
Consumer Cyclical	3.0%	10.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	4.3%
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

GK vs. CWS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GK

GK Risk / Return Rank: 35
GK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
GK Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
GK Omega Ratio Rank: 34
GK Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GK Martin Ratio Rank: 38

CWS

CWS Risk / Return Rank: 19
CWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
CWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
CWS Omega Ratio Rank: 19
CWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
CWS Martin Ratio Rank: 19

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GK vs. CWS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF (GK) and AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS). 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.

	GK	CWS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	0.41	+0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.37	0.67	+0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.08	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.18	0.46	+0.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.00	1.16	+2.83

GK vs. CWS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GK Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is higher than the CWS Sharpe Ratio of 0.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GK and CWS, 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

GK vs. CWS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GK drawdown since its inception was -47.72%, which is greater than CWS's maximum drawdown of -33.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GK and CWS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GK	CWS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.72%	-33.82%	-13.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.13%	-11.92%	-3.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.62%	-16.56%	-7.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.72%	-24.87%	-22.85%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.59%	-0.50%	-4.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.36%	-4.54%	-18.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.44%	4.69%	-0.25%

Volatility

GK vs. CWS - Volatility Comparison

AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF (GK) has a higher volatility of 7.21% compared to AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) at 3.44%. This indicates that GK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CWS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GK	CWS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.21%	3.44%	+3.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.42%	10.26%	+6.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.80%	13.50%	+6.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.13%	15.70%	+8.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.01%	16.84%	+7.17%

GK vs. CWS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GK has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than CWS's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

GK vs. CWS - Dividend Comparison

GK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than CWS's 0.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	0.29%	0.31%	0.59%	0.25%	0.50%	0.16%	0.27%	0.39%	2.07%	0.29%	0.03%
GK AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%	0.13%	1.30%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GK and CWS in my portfolio?

GK and CWS have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GK or CWS?

GK has higher volatility (7.21%) compared to CWS (3.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GK dropped -47.72% vs CWS's -33.82%.

Which ETF is better, GK or CWS?

On 5-year performance, CWS leads with 8.67% vs 2.34% for GK. On fees, GK is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, CWS has been the lower-risk option at 3.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GK or CWS?

Over the 5-year period, CWS has performed better with a 8.67% return vs 2.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GK or CWS?

GK is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for CWS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GK or CWS?

CWS has the higher dividend yield at 0.29%, compared with 0.07% for GK.

What is the main difference between GK and CWS?

Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GK and 0.77% for CWS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.90 vs 0.41), 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.