GRW vs. EIPX

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and EIPX (FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by TCW, while EIPX is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.47, they often move in opposite directions. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for EIPX.

Performance

GRW vs. EIPX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX). 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*: —

EIPX

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: -3.17%
• YTD: 20.93%
• 6M: 20.98%
• 1Y: 27.12%
• 3Y*: 21.25%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GRW vs. EIPX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.71%
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	-1.06%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and EIPX is -0.47, 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 28, 2026	-0.47

GRW vs. EIPX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRW	EIPX
Industrials	39.6%	4.8%
Technology	26.0%	0.3%
Financial Services	8.6%	-
Communication Services	7.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	-
Basic Materials	3.8%	-
Healthcare	3.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	68.4%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	26.4%

Return for Risk

GRW vs. EIPX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments 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.

EIPX

EIPX Risk / Return Rank: 83
EIPX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
EIPX Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
EIPX Omega Ratio Rank: 76
EIPX Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
EIPX Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. EIPX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF (EIPX). 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	EIPX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.45	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.49	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.41	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	5.27	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	16.25	—

Drawdowns

GRW vs. EIPX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -3.83%, smaller than the maximum EIPX drawdown of -15.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and EIPX.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	EIPX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-15.43%	+11.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-5.17%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.43%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.25%	-3.41%	+1.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.99%	-2.29%	+1.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.67%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	EIPX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.61%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	8.44%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.15%	11.17%	+7.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.15%	15.02%	+4.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.15%	15.02%	+4.13%

GRW vs. EIPX - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than EIPX's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. EIPX - Dividend Comparison

GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EIPX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.70%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EIPX FT Energy Income Partners Strategy ETF	2.70%	3.23%	3.27%	3.48%	0.34%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and EIPX in my portfolio?

GRW and EIPX have a correlation of -0.47, 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 EIPX?

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 EIPX?

GRW is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for EIPX.

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

EIPX has the higher dividend yield at 2.70%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between GRW and EIPX?

GRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while EIPX is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: TCW and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.95% for EIPX.