PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GRPM vs. PWC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GRPM vs. PWC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) and Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GRPM achieves a 8.28% return, which is significantly higher than PWC's 6.62% return. Over the past 10 years, GRPM has outperformed PWC with an annualized return of 10.99%, while PWC has yielded a comparatively lower 9.43% annualized return.


GRPM

1D
1.09%
1M
2.14%
YTD
8.28%
6M
7.33%
1Y
24.17%
3Y*
15.72%
5Y*
7.89%
10Y*
10.99%

PWC

1D
0.73%
1M
0.87%
YTD
6.62%
6M
6.60%
1Y
10.03%
3Y*
14.03%
5Y*
6.25%
10Y*
9.43%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GRPM vs. PWC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GRPM
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF
8.28%7.81%15.67%18.79%-11.63%26.35%15.60%23.05%-12.45%13.05%
PWC
Invesco Dynamic Market ETF
6.62%6.15%17.46%19.03%-16.01%19.38%8.52%13.47%-6.40%20.16%

Correlation

The correlation between GRPM and PWC is 0.65, 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

0.65

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.75

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2010

0.82

The correlation between GRPM and PWC shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.82 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GRPM vs. PWC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GRPM
PWC

Financial Services

29.9%
14.0%

Technology

16.6%
26.1%

Energy

15.8%
5.5%

Healthcare

12.3%
12.7%

Industrials

10.0%
10.3%

Consumer Cyclical

9.7%
11.5%

Consumer Defensive

5.8%
6.8%

Basic Materials

-

3.5%

Communication Services

-

7.0%

Real Estate

-

5.6%

Utilities

-

2.7%

Financial Services

GRPM
29.9%
PWC
14.0%

Technology

GRPM
16.6%
PWC
26.1%

Energy

GRPM
15.8%
PWC
5.5%

Healthcare

GRPM
12.3%
PWC
12.7%

Industrials

GRPM
10.0%
PWC
10.3%

Consumer Cyclical

GRPM
9.7%
PWC
11.5%

Consumer Defensive

GRPM
5.8%
PWC
6.8%

Basic Materials

GRPM

-

PWC
3.5%

Communication Services

GRPM

-

PWC
7.0%

Real Estate

GRPM

-

PWC
5.6%

Utilities

GRPM

-

PWC
2.7%

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

GRPM vs. PWC — Risk / Return Rank

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

GRPM
GRPM Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
GRPM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GRPM Sortino Ratio Rank: 4545
Sortino Ratio Rank
GRPM Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
GRPM Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
GRPM Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank

PWC
PWC Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GRPM vs. PWC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) and Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC). 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.


GRPMPWCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.48

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.67

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.18

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.19

1.56

+1.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.42

4.78

+4.64

GRPM vs. PWC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRPM Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is higher than the PWC Sharpe Ratio of 1.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRPM and PWC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GRPMPWCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.51

1.03

+0.48

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

0.39

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.50

0.50

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.55

0.11

+0.44

Drawdowns

GRPM vs. PWC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRPM drawdown since its inception was -43.12%, smaller than the maximum PWC drawdown of -78.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRPM and PWC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GRPMPWCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-43.12%

-78.13%

+35.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.62%

-6.45%

-1.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.09%

-15.12%

-12.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.09%

-26.58%

-1.51%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.12%

-39.45%

-3.67%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.65%

+1.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.71%

-36.20%

+30.49%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.57%

2.10%

+0.47%

Volatility

GRPM vs. PWC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) has a higher volatility of 3.77% compared to Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) at 2.26%. This indicates that GRPM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PWC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GRPMPWCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.77%

2.26%

+1.51%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.45%

7.21%

+3.24%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.05%

9.77%

+6.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.90%

16.07%

+4.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.25%

18.81%

+3.44%

GRPM vs. PWC - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRPM has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than PWC's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

GRPM vs. PWC - Dividend Comparison

GRPM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, less than PWC's 1.67% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GRPM
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF
0.95%1.19%0.95%0.96%1.28%0.92%1.16%1.25%1.50%1.14%1.00%1.43%
PWC
Invesco Dynamic Market ETF
1.67%1.77%1.58%1.67%1.51%0.56%1.09%0.95%1.44%1.75%1.35%1.02%

Frequently Asked Questions


GRPM and PWC have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GRPM has higher volatility (3.77%) compared to PWC (2.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRPM dropped -43.12% vs PWC's -78.13%.

On 10-year performance, GRPM leads with 10.99% vs 9.43% for PWC. On fees, GRPM is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, PWC has been the lower-risk option at 2.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GRPM has performed better with a 10.99% return vs 9.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GRPM is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for PWC.

PWC has the higher dividend yield at 1.67%, compared with 0.95% for GRPM.

GRPM tracks S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index, while PWC tracks Dynamic Market Intellidex Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GRPM and 0.60% for PWC.

GRPM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.51 vs 1.03), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GRPM and PWC

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