GRW vs. SLNZ
GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and SLNZ (TCW Senior Loan ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by TCW, while SLNZ is a Bank Loan fund actively managed by TCW. Both are actively managed. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for SLNZ.
Performance
GRW vs. SLNZ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
GRW
- 1D
- -1.53%
- 1M
- 0.44%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SLNZ
- 1D
- 0.10%
- 1M
- 1.09%
- 6M
- 2.00%
- YTD
- 2.27%
- 1Y
- 4.37%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GRW vs. SLNZ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 1.86% |
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF | 1.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between GRW and SLNZ is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026 | 0.32 |
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. SLNZ — Risk / Return Rank
GRW
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
SLNZ
GRW vs. SLNZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ). 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 | SLNZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.20 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.71 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 5.34 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GRW vs. SLNZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -3.83%, which is greater than SLNZ's maximum drawdown of -2.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and SLNZ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GRW | SLNZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.83% | -2.57% | -1.26% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -2.57% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.91% | 0.00% | -2.91% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.07% | -0.43% | -0.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.82% | — |
Volatility
GRW vs. SLNZ - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GRW | SLNZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.85% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 3.56% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.94% | 4.38% | +12.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.94% | 4.20% | +12.74% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.94% | 4.20% | +12.74% |
GRW vs. SLNZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than SLNZ's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
GRW vs. SLNZ - Dividend Comparison
GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SLNZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.49%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF | 7.49% | 7.39% | 1.39% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GRW and SLNZ have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SLNZ is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SLNZ is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.
SLNZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.49%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.
GRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while SLNZ is Bank Loan. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.65% for SLNZ.
Find the right allocation for GRW and SLNZ
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