GRW vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - GRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by TCW, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. GRW is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.35, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

GRW vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

GRW

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UGA

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -12.11%
• YTD: 64.09%
• 6M: 60.42%
• 1Y: 59.74%
• 3Y*: 18.95%
• 5Y*: 22.69%
• 10Y*: 14.31%

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

GRW vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.71%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	-4.80%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and UGA is -0.35, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026	-0.35

Return for Risk

GRW vs. UGA — 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.

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 55
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.73	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.25	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.30	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.17	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	9.39	—

Drawdowns

GRW vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -3.83%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-86.59%	+82.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-18.96%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.25%	-18.05%	+15.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.99%	-36.69%	+35.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	6.43%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	9.24%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	30.57%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.15%	35.22%	-16.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.15%	34.45%	-15.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.15%	37.22%	-18.07%

GRW vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GRW and UGA have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

GRW vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

Neither GRW nor UGA has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and UGA in my portfolio?

GRW and UGA have a correlation of -0.35, 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 UGA?

Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or UGA?

GRW and UGA have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

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

GRW and UGA have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between GRW and UGA?

GRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: TCW and Concierge Technologies.