GRW vs. BBHL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and BBHL (BBH Select Large Cap ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GRW is actively managed, while BBHL is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.71%/yr for BBHL.

Performance

GRW vs. BBHL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

GRW

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BBHL

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 4.47%
• 6M: 4.12%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GRW vs. BBHL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.71%
BBHL BBH Select Large Cap ETF	-0.36%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and BBHL is 0.88, 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 28, 2026	0.88

Return for Risk

GRW vs. BBHL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and BBH Select Large Cap ETF (BBHL). 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.

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

Drawdowns

GRW vs. BBHL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -3.83%, smaller than the maximum BBHL drawdown of -11.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and BBHL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	BBHL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-11.99%	+8.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.25%	-2.41%	+0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.99%	-2.87%	+1.88%

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	BBHL	Difference
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.15%	13.16%	+5.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.15%	13.16%	+5.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.15%	13.16%	+5.99%

GRW vs. BBHL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than BBHL's 0.71% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. BBHL - Dividend Comparison

Neither GRW nor BBHL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and BBHL in my portfolio?

GRW and BBHL have a correlation of 0.88, 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 BBHL?

On fees, BBHL is cheaper at 0.71% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or BBHL?

BBHL is cheaper with a 0.71% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

GRW and BBHL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GRW and BBHL?

They also come from different issuers: TCW and BBH. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.71% for BBHL.