GRW vs. RFDA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.22 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

GRW vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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*: —

RFDA

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 1.66%
• 6M: 12.44%
• YTD: 14.14%
• 1Y: 26.35%
• 3Y*: 17.71%
• 5Y*: 12.90%
• 10Y*: 13.32%
• ALL TIME*: 13.38%

*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
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	$102.21K	$102.34K	$118.80K

GRW vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	2.98%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	3.66%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and RFDA is 0.22, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026	0.22

GRW vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRW	RFDA
Industrials	41.5%	9.3%
Technology	26.9%	15.4%
Financial Services	8.8%	18.8%
Communication Services	7.9%	6.2%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	8.1%
Basic Materials	3.9%	1.8%
Healthcare	3.7%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.1%
Energy	-	11.1%
Real Estate	-	5.1%
Utilities	-	4.9%

Return for Risk

GRW vs. RFDA — 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.

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 89
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.07	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.85	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.38	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.47	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	15.99	—

Drawdowns

GRW vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -4.12%, smaller than the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-34.60%	+30.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-5.45%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.35%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.85%	-0.84%	-1.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.73%	-3.70%	+1.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.52%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.85%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	8.65%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.72%	11.76%	+3.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.72%	15.72%	0.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.72%	16.84%	-1.12%

GRW vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
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%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.77%	1.89%	2.23%	2.68%	3.57%	1.44%	1.62%	1.87%	2.44%	1.90%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and RFDA in my portfolio?

GRW and RFDA have a correlation of 0.22, 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 RFDA?

On fees, RFDA is cheaper at 0.52% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or RFDA?

RFDA is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between GRW and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: TCW and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.52% for RFDA.