GRW vs. QUS
GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and QUS (SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GRW is actively managed, while QUS is passively managed. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QUS.
Performance
GRW vs. QUS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
GRW
- 1D
- -1.53%
- 1M
- 0.44%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QUS
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 1.92%
- 6M
- 7.09%
- YTD
- 9.05%
- 1Y
- 17.46%
- 3Y*
- 16.78%
- 5Y*
- 10.91%
- 10Y*
- 13.50%
GRW vs. QUS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 1.86% |
QUS SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF | 1.99% |
Correlation
The correlation between GRW and QUS is 0.59, 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 | 0.59 |
GRW vs. QUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GRW
QUS
Industrials
Technology
Financial Services
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Basic Materials
Healthcare
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Industrials
GRW
QUS
Technology
GRW
QUS
Financial Services
GRW
QUS
Communication Services
GRW
QUS
Consumer Cyclical
GRW
QUS
Basic Materials
GRW
QUS
Healthcare
GRW
QUS
Consumer Defensive
GRW
-
QUS
Energy
GRW
-
QUS
Real Estate
GRW
-
QUS
Utilities
GRW
-
QUS
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
GRW vs. QUS — Risk / Return Rank
GRW
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
QUS
GRW vs. QUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). 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 | QUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.35 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.56 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 11.30 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GRW vs. QUS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -3.83%, smaller than the maximum QUS drawdown of -33.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and QUS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GRW | QUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.83% | -33.78% | +29.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -6.85% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.94% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -22.30% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -33.78% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.91% | -0.05% | -2.86% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.07% | -3.67% | +2.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.55% | — |
Volatility
GRW vs. QUS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GRW | QUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.51% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 6.93% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.94% | 9.15% | +7.79% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.94% | 14.33% | +2.61% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.94% | 16.39% | +0.55% |
GRW vs. QUS - Expense Ratio Comparison
GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than QUS's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
GRW vs. QUS - Dividend Comparison
GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QUS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%.
| 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% |
QUS SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF | 1.28% | 1.38% | 1.49% | 1.57% | 1.68% | 1.27% | 1.73% | 1.81% | 2.12% | 1.86% | 2.07% | 1.48% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GRW and QUS have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QUS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QUS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.
QUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.
They also come from different issuers: TCW and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.15% for QUS.
Find the right allocation for GRW and QUS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer