GVIP vs. PFM
GVIP (Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - GVIP tracks the Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund VIP Index while PFM tracks the NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GVIP returned 12.90%/yr vs 10.63%/yr for PFM. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GVIP charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.
Performance
GVIP vs. PFM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GVIP achieves a 16.17% return, which is significantly higher than PFM's 8.18% return.
GVIP
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- 6.71%
- YTD
- 16.17%
- 6M
- 18.08%
- 1Y
- 36.94%
- 3Y*
- 30.49%
- 5Y*
- 12.90%
- 10Y*
- —
PFM
- 1D
- -0.23%
- 1M
- 3.40%
- YTD
- 8.18%
- 6M
- 7.73%
- 1Y
- 19.65%
- 3Y*
- 16.31%
- 5Y*
- 10.63%
- 10Y*
- 11.82%
GVIP vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF | 16.17% | 25.27% | 29.82% | 39.15% | -31.95% | 11.86% | 44.12% | 30.21% | -6.85% | 25.79% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 8.18% | 14.00% | 16.87% | 11.40% | -6.22% | 23.08% | 9.53% | 26.88% | -4.58% | 17.65% |
Correlation
The correlation between GVIP and PFM is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.69 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.74 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2016 | 0.73 |
The correlation between GVIP and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (1 year) to 0.74 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
GVIP vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GVIP
PFM
Technology
Financial Services
Communication Services
Industrials
Utilities
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
GVIP
PFM
Financial Services
GVIP
PFM
Communication Services
GVIP
PFM
Industrials
GVIP
PFM
Utilities
GVIP
PFM
Healthcare
GVIP
PFM
Consumer Cyclical
GVIP
PFM
Consumer Defensive
GVIP
PFM
Basic Materials
GVIP
-
PFM
Energy
GVIP
-
PFM
Real Estate
GVIP
-
PFM
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
GVIP vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank
GVIP
PFM
GVIP vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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.
| GVIP | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.04 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.38 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.71 | 2.78 | -0.07 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.81 | 11.28 | +0.53 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GVIP | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.05 | 2.09 | -0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.61 | 0.79 | -0.18 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.78 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.82 | 0.53 | +0.29 |
Drawdowns
GVIP vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GVIP drawdown since its inception was -37.09%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GVIP and PFM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GVIP | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.09% | -53.21% | +16.12% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.67% | -7.09% | -6.58% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.29% | -14.50% | -8.79% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.09% | -17.81% | -19.28% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.33% | -0.23% | -0.10% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.59% | -6.94% | -0.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.14% | 1.75% | +1.39% |
Volatility
GVIP vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison
Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) has a higher volatility of 5.42% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that GVIP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GVIP | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.42% | 2.04% | +3.38% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.47% | 7.13% | +7.34% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.13% | 9.47% | +8.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.29% | 13.54% | +7.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.65% | 15.21% | +6.44% |
GVIP vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison
GVIP has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
GVIP vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison
GVIP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.29%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF | 0.29% | 0.34% | 0.29% | 0.77% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.12% | 0.77% | 0.44% | 0.45% | 0.08% | 0.00% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 1.33% | 1.41% | 1.58% | 1.86% | 1.95% | 1.69% | 1.92% | 1.94% | 2.27% | 1.70% | 2.56% | 2.36% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GVIP and PFM have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GVIP has higher volatility (5.42%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GVIP dropped -37.09% vs PFM's -53.21%.
On 5-year performance, GVIP leads with 12.90% vs 10.63% for PFM. On fees, GVIP is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, GVIP has performed better with a 12.90% return vs 10.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GVIP is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.
PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.29% for GVIP.
GVIP tracks Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund VIP Index, while PFM tracks NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GVIP and 0.53% for PFM.
PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 2.05), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for GVIP and PFM
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