GRW vs. PFM

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GRW is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

GRW vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GRW

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 0.44%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PFM

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 1.28%
• 6M: 6.72%
• YTD: 9.51%
• 1Y: 17.10%
• 3Y*: 15.34%
• 5Y*: 10.70%
• 10Y*: 11.38%

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

GRW vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.86%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	2.21%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and PFM is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026	0.53

GRW vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRW	PFM
Industrials	39.6%	10.7%
Technology	25.9%	27.6%
Financial Services	8.7%	17.9%
Communication Services	7.7%	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.3%	3.7%
Basic Materials	3.9%	2.8%
Healthcare	3.6%	15.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	11.1%
Energy	-	4.3%
Real Estate	-	2.0%
Utilities	-	3.9%

Return for Risk

GRW vs. PFM — 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.

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 70
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 72
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.83	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.68	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.33	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.42	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	9.83	—

Drawdowns

GRW vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -3.83%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-53.21%	+49.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.09%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.50%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.81%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.91%	-0.15%	-2.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.07%	-6.91%	+5.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.74%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.04%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	7.11%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.94%	9.40%	+7.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.94%	13.49%	+3.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.94%	15.18%	+1.76%

GRW vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	1.33%	1.41%	1.58%	1.86%	1.95%	1.69%	1.92%	1.94%	2.27%	1.70%	2.56%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and PFM in my portfolio?

GRW and PFM have a correlation of 0.53, 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 PFM?

On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or PFM?

PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between GRW and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: TCW and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.53% for PFM.