GRW vs. ACLO

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and ACLO (TCW AAA CLO ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by TCW, while ACLO is a CLO fund actively managed by TCW. Both are actively managed. Their 0.06 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACLO.

Performance

GRW vs. ACLO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

GRW

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: -1.32%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

ACLO

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.47%
• 6M: 2.38%
• YTD: 3.02%
• 1Y: 5.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.42%

*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)
ACLO TCW AAA CLO ETF	$1.47M	$960.37K	$1.34M
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	$173.33K	$124.39K	$212.92K

GRW vs. ACLO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	2.98%
ACLO TCW AAA CLO ETF	0.91%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and ACLO is 0.06, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026	0.06

Return for Risk

GRW vs. ACLO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GRW

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

ACLO

ACLO Risk / Return Rank: 99
ACLO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
ACLO Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
ACLO Omega Ratio Rank: 99
ACLO Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
ACLO Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

GRW vs. ACLO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and TCW AAA CLO ETF (ACLO). 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.

	GRW	ACLO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	7.18	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	14.73	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	3.34	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	19.31	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	163.02	—

Drawdowns

GRW vs. ACLO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -4.12%, which is greater than ACLO's maximum drawdown of -1.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and ACLO.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	ACLO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-1.01%	-3.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.27%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.85%	0.00%	-1.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.73%	-0.04%	-1.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.03%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	ACLO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.19%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	0.57%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.72%	0.72%	+15.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.72%	1.05%	+14.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.72%	1.05%	+14.67%

GRW vs. ACLO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ACLO's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. ACLO - Dividend Comparison

GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACLO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.89%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
ACLO TCW AAA CLO ETF	4.49%	4.87%	0.59%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and ACLO in my portfolio?

GRW and ACLO have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GRW or ACLO?

On fees, ACLO is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or ACLO?

ACLO is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

ACLO has the higher dividend yield at 4.49%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between GRW and ACLO?

GRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while ACLO is CLO. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.20% for ACLO.