GRW vs. QWLD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and QWLD (SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GRW is actively managed, while QWLD is passively managed. Their 0.62 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QWLD.

Performance

GRW vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GRW

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: -1.32%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

QWLD

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 1.63%
• 6M: 6.46%
• YTD: 9.39%
• 1Y: 19.11%
• 3Y*: 15.49%
• 5Y*: 10.03%
• 10Y*: 11.57%
• ALL TIME*: 10.49%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	$173.33K	$124.39K	$212.92K
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	$231.12K	$297.84K	$1.04M

GRW vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	2.98%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	2.44%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and QWLD is 0.62, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026	0.62

GRW vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRW	QWLD
Industrials	41.5%	10.9%
Technology	26.9%	24.9%
Financial Services	8.8%	16.5%
Communication Services	7.9%	9.5%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	6.3%
Basic Materials	3.9%	2.5%
Healthcare	3.7%	13.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.1%
Energy	-	3.4%
Real Estate	-	1.0%
Utilities	-	3.8%

Return for Risk

GRW vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks 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.

QWLD

QWLD Risk / Return Rank: 80
QWLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
QWLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
QWLD Omega Ratio Rank: 82
QWLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
QWLD Martin Ratio Rank: 81

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GRW vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). 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	QWLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.93	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.75	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.34	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.44	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	10.67	—

Drawdowns

GRW vs. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -4.12%, smaller than the maximum QWLD drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and QWLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	QWLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-31.89%	+27.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.66%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.40%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.84%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.85%	0.00%	-1.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.73%	-3.66%	+1.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.75%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	QWLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.30%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	7.73%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.72%	9.71%	+6.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.72%	13.51%	+2.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.72%	15.12%	+0.60%

GRW vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than QWLD's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison

GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QWLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%.

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%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	1.79%	1.85%	1.74%	1.78%	2.02%	1.77%	1.77%	2.13%	2.33%	2.73%	2.22%	3.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and QWLD in my portfolio?

GRW and QWLD have a correlation of 0.62, 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 QWLD?

On fees, QWLD is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or QWLD?

QWLD is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between GRW and QWLD?

They also come from different issuers: TCW and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.30% for QWLD.