GRW vs. WTIU

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) and WTIU (MicroSectors Energy 3X Leveraged ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - GRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by TCW, while WTIU is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the Solactive MicroSectors Energy Index - Benchmark TR Gross (--300%). GRW is actively managed, while WTIU is passively managed. Their -0.59 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. GRW charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for WTIU.

Performance

GRW vs. WTIU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and MicroSectors Energy 3X Leveraged ETN (WTIU). 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*: —

WTIU

• 1D: 3.15%
• 1M: 45.95%
• 6M: 51.31%
• YTD: 104.80%
• 1Y: 114.64%
• 3Y*: 0.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -4.45%

*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
WTIU MicroSectors Energy 3X Leveraged ETN	$1.32M	$870.89K	$849.27K

GRW vs. WTIU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	2.98%
WTIU MicroSectors Energy 3X Leveraged ETN	21.82%

Correlation

The correlation between GRW and WTIU is -0.59, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026	-0.59

GRW vs. WTIU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRW	WTIU
Industrials	41.5%	-
Technology	26.9%	-
Financial Services	8.8%	-
Communication Services	7.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	-
Basic Materials	3.9%	-
Healthcare	3.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	100.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

GRW vs. WTIU — 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.

WTIU

WTIU Risk / Return Rank: 55
WTIU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
WTIU Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
WTIU Omega Ratio Rank: 54
WTIU Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
WTIU Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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. WTIU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) and MicroSectors Energy 3X Leveraged ETN (WTIU). 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	WTIU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.44	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.93	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.24	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.09	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	4.79	—

Drawdowns

GRW vs. WTIU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRW drawdown since its inception was -4.12%, smaller than the maximum WTIU drawdown of -75.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRW and WTIU.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRW	WTIU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-75.73%	+71.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-48.11%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-75.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.85%	-27.41%	+25.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.73%	-39.21%	+37.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	21.07%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GRW	WTIU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	21.18%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	57.82%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.72%	69.90%	-54.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.72%	70.86%	-55.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.72%	70.86%	-55.14%

GRW vs. WTIU - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRW has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than WTIU's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRW vs. WTIU - Dividend Comparison

Neither GRW nor WTIU has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRW and WTIU in my portfolio?

GRW and WTIU 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.

Which ETF is better, GRW or WTIU?

On fees, GRW is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRW or WTIU?

GRW is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for WTIU.

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

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

What is the main difference between GRW and WTIU?

GRW is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while WTIU is Leveraged Equities. They also come from different issuers: TCW and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRW and 0.95% for WTIU.