GRW vs. FLRG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and FLRG (Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GRW is actively managed, while FLRG is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for FLRG.

Performance

GRW vs. FLRG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

GRW

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLRG

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 3.39%
• YTD: 9.38%
• 6M: 9.06%
• 1Y: 19.32%
• 3Y*: 19.65%
• 5Y*: 13.09%
• 10Y*: —

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

GRW vs. FLRG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.46%
FLRG Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF	0.68%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and FLRG is 0.90, 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 29, 2026	0.90

GRW vs. FLRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRW	FLRG
Industrials	38.1%	7.7%
Technology	26.6%	34.7%
Financial Services	9.8%	12.3%
Communication Services	9.1%	10.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	10.7%
Healthcare	4.1%	9.2%
Basic Materials	4.0%	2.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.6%
Energy	-	4.8%
Real Estate	-	2.1%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

GRW vs. FLRG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLRG

FLRG Risk / Return Rank: 58
FLRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
FLRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FLRG Omega Ratio Rank: 57
FLRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
FLRG Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. FLRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF (FLRG). 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	FLRG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	13.58	1.05	+12.53

Drawdowns

GRW vs. FLRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -0.45%, smaller than the maximum FLRG drawdown of -19.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and FLRG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	FLRG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.45%	-19.64%	+19.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.16%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.53%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	-0.14%	-0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.17%	-3.74%	+3.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.81%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	FLRG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.33%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	7.57%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.89%	10.13%	-1.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.89%	15.17%	-6.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.89%	15.01%	-6.12%

GRW vs. FLRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than FLRG's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. FLRG - Dividend Comparison

GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FLRG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FLRG Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF	1.34%	1.42%	1.42%	1.39%	1.62%	1.36%	1.47%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and FLRG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, GRW and FLRG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, GRW or FLRG?

On fees, FLRG is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or FLRG?

FLRG is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

FLRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between GRW and FLRG?

They also come from different issuers: TCW and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.29% for FLRG.