PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
GRPM vs. PWC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

GRPM vs. PWC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

GRPM (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF) and PWC (Invesco Dynamic Market ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds from Invesco - GRPM tracks the S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index while PWC tracks the Dynamic Market Intellidex Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GRPM returned 11.33%/yr vs 9.67%/yr for PWC. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. GRPM charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for PWC.

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 13.17% return, which is significantly higher than PWC's 10.39% return. Over the past 10 years, GRPM has outperformed PWC with an annualized return of 11.33%, while PWC has yielded a comparatively lower 9.67% annualized return.

GRPM

1D
-0.35%
1M
2.06%
6M
11.71%
YTD
13.17%
1Y
21.04%
3Y*
13.73%
5Y*
9.29%
10Y*
11.33%
ALL TIME*
11.48%

PWC

1D
-0.14%
1M
2.91%
6M
5.45%
YTD
10.39%
1Y
14.32%
3Y*
12.40%
5Y*
7.27%
10Y*
9.67%
ALL TIME*
2.95%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

GRPM

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF
$1.43M$1.18M$1.33M

PWC

Invesco Dynamic Market ETF
$49.65K$64.59K$60.35K

GRPM vs. PWC - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GRPM
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF		13.17%7.81%15.67%18.79%-11.63%26.35%15.60%23.05%-12.45%13.05%
PWC
Invesco Dynamic Market ETF		10.39%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 have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.65

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.74

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.82

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.80

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 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

23.3%
16.9%

Technology

20.8%
14.2%

Healthcare

19.0%
10.9%

Consumer Cyclical

13.1%
7.4%

Industrials

12.3%
14.4%

Energy

5.0%
5.8%

Basic Materials

3.8%
5.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
5.3%

Communication Services

-

7.3%

Real Estate

-

5.3%

Utilities

-

5.3%

Financial Services

GRPM
23.3%
PWC
16.9%

Technology

GRPM
20.8%
PWC
14.2%

Healthcare

GRPM
19.0%
PWC
10.9%

Consumer Cyclical

GRPM
13.1%
PWC
7.4%

Industrials

GRPM
12.3%
PWC
14.4%

Energy

GRPM
5.0%
PWC
5.8%

Basic Materials

GRPM
3.8%
PWC
5.5%

Consumer Defensive

GRPM
2.6%
PWC
5.3%

Communication Services

GRPM

-

PWC
7.3%

Real Estate

GRPM

-

PWC
5.3%

Utilities

GRPM

-

PWC
5.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF

Invesco Dynamic Market ETF

Often compared with GRPM:
GRPM vs. XMHQGRPM vs. VOGRPM vs. GRPZGRPM vs. FDVLXGRPM vs. AVUVGRPM vs. AAPLGRPM vs. EQWL
Often compared with PWC:
PWC vs. FWRG.LPWC vs. SPYPWC vs. TUSAPWC vs. SCHGPWC vs. TXSPWC vs. SOXXPWC vs. CGDV

Return for Risk

GRPM vs. PWC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
GRPM
GRPM Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
GRPM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GRPM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
GRPM Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
GRPM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
GRPM Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank
PWC
PWC Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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.

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.

GRPMPWCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.26
1.40

-0.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.88
2.09

-0.22

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.24

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.58

2.15

+0.43

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.67

6.44

+1.23

GRPM vs. PWC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRPM Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is comparable to the PWC Sharpe Ratio of 1.40. 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...

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

-1.19%

-1.56%

+0.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.66%

-35.96%

+30.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.56%

2.15%

+0.41%

Volatility

GRPM vs. PWC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) has a higher volatility of 4.04% compared to Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) at 3.43%. 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

4.04%

3.43%

+0.61%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.51%

7.30%

+3.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.65%

9.97%

+5.68%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.80%

15.90%

+4.90%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.19%

18.73%

+3.46%

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 0.70%, less than PWC's 1.72% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GRPM
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF		0.70%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		1.72%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 (4.04%) compared to PWC (3.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRPM dropped -43.12% vs PWC's -78.13%.

On 10-year performance, GRPM leads with 11.33% vs 9.67% for PWC. On fees, GRPM is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, PWC has been the lower-risk option at 3.43%. 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 11.33% return vs 9.67%. 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 1.72%, compared with 0.70% 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.

PWC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.40 vs 1.26), 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