GRW vs. NRGU

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and NRGU (MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - GRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by TCW, while NRGU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index (-300%). GRW is actively managed, while NRGU is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.57, they often move in opposite directions. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for NRGU.

Performance

GRW vs. NRGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GRW

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: -1.75%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NRGU

• 1D: 6.71%
• 1M: 31.49%
• 6M: 102.34%
• YTD: 132.63%
• 1Y: 126.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GRW vs. NRGU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.18%
NRGU MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN	19.10%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and NRGU is -0.57, 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	-0.57

GRW vs. NRGU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRW	NRGU
Industrials	39.6%	-
Technology	25.9%	-
Financial Services	8.7%	-
Communication Services	7.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.3%	-
Basic Materials	3.9%	-
Healthcare	3.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	100.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GRW vs. NRGU — 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.

NRGU

NRGU Risk / Return Rank: 58
NRGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
NRGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
NRGU Omega Ratio Rank: 53
NRGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
NRGU Martin Ratio Rank: 49

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. NRGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and MicroSectors U.S. Big Oil Index 3X Leveraged ETN (NRGU). 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	NRGU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.65	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.14	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.27	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.89	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	6.47	—

Drawdowns

GRW vs. NRGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -3.83%, smaller than the maximum NRGU drawdown of -57.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and NRGU.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	NRGU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-57.50%	+53.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-43.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.56%	-19.77%	+16.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.25%	-26.04%	+24.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	19.57%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	NRGU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	24.11%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	63.88%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.42%	77.06%	-60.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.42%	89.11%	-72.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.42%	89.11%	-72.69%

GRW vs. NRGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GRW vs. NRGU - Dividend Comparison

Neither GRW nor NRGU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and NRGU in my portfolio?

GRW and NRGU have a correlation of -0.57, 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 NRGU?

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 NRGU?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between GRW and NRGU?

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