GRW vs. AESR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and AESR (Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.40, they often move in opposite directions. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.46%/yr for AESR.

Performance

GRW vs. AESR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF (AESR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GRW

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

AESR

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 7.94%
• YTD: 20.98%
• 6M: 21.17%
• 1Y: 39.18%
• 3Y*: 26.82%
• 5Y*: 15.28%
• 10Y*: —

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

GRW vs. AESR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.29%
AESR Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF	1.13%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and AESR is -0.40, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	-0.40

GRW vs. AESR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRW	AESR
Industrials	38.1%	10.6%
Technology	26.6%	33.8%
Financial Services	9.8%	7.0%
Communication Services	9.1%	26.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	12.8%
Healthcare	4.1%	2.0%
Basic Materials	4.0%	2.7%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.4%
Energy	-	2.1%
Real Estate	-	0.3%
Utilities	-	0.3%

Return for Risk

GRW vs. AESR — Risk / Return Rank

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

AESR

AESR Risk / Return Rank: 75
AESR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
AESR Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
AESR Omega Ratio Rank: 70
AESR Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
AESR Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

GRW vs. AESR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF (AESR). 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.

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

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GRW	AESR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.40	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.86	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	14.00	0.83	+13.16

Drawdowns

GRW vs. AESR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -0.45%, smaller than the maximum AESR drawdown of -31.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and AESR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	AESR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.45%	-31.06%	+30.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-9.82%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.85%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.45%	-0.05%	-0.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.14%	-6.02%	+5.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.33%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	AESR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	5.52%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	12.73%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.19%	16.39%	-6.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.19%	17.83%	-7.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.19%	20.44%	-10.25%

GRW vs. AESR - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than AESR's 1.46% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. AESR - Dividend Comparison

GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AESR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 19.03%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AESR Anfield U.S. Equity Sector Rotation ETF	19.03%	23.02%	0.17%	0.33%	0.73%	6.59%	1.06%	0.33%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and AESR in my portfolio?

GRW and AESR have a correlation of -0.40, 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 AESR?

On fees, GRW is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or AESR?

GRW is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.46% for AESR.

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

AESR has the higher dividend yield at 19.03%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between GRW and AESR?

They also come from different issuers: TCW and Regents Park Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 1.46% for AESR.