GK vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GK (AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

GK vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

GK

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: 9.38%
• YTD: 17.29%
• 6M: 16.22%
• 1Y: 34.45%
• 3Y*: 20.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GRW

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GK vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GK AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF	1.05%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.29%

Correlation

The correlation between GK and GRW is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	0.80

GK vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GK	GRW
Technology	38.9%	26.6%
Communication Services	16.6%	9.1%
Industrials	16.3%	38.1%
Healthcare	7.6%	4.1%
Financial Services	6.1%	9.8%
Utilities	4.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	3.0%	8.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	-
Basic Materials	-	4.0%
Energy	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

GK vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

GK

GK Risk / Return Rank: 54
GK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
GK Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
GK Omega Ratio Rank: 57
GK Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
GK Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

GK vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF (GK) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). 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.

	GK	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.29	—	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.76	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GK	GRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.00	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.16	14.00	-13.83

Drawdowns

GK vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GK drawdown since its inception was -47.72%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GK and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	GK	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.72%	-0.45%	-47.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.62%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.42%	-0.45%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.00%	-0.14%	-23.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GK	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.76%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.64%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.30%	10.19%	+7.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.93%	10.19%	+13.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.93%	10.19%	+13.74%

GK vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GK and GRW have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

GK vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

GK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GK AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%	0.13%	1.30%	0.04%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GK and GRW in my portfolio?

GK and GRW have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GK or GRW?

Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GK or GRW?

GK and GRW have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

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

GK has the higher dividend yield at 0.07%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between GK and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and TCW.