PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GVIP vs. PFM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GVIP vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

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

GVIP vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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

38.6%
24.7%

Financial Services

15.8%
18.5%

Communication Services

11.5%
1.1%

Industrials

9.5%
11.1%

Utilities

8.4%
4.2%

Healthcare

8.0%
14.9%

Consumer Cyclical

8.0%
4.0%

Consumer Defensive

1.2%
12.0%

Basic Materials

-

3.0%

Energy

-

4.7%

Real Estate

-

2.0%

Technology

GVIP
38.6%
PFM
24.7%

Financial Services

GVIP
15.8%
PFM
18.5%

Communication Services

GVIP
11.5%
PFM
1.1%

Industrials

GVIP
9.5%
PFM
11.1%

Utilities

GVIP
8.4%
PFM
4.2%

Healthcare

GVIP
8.0%
PFM
14.9%

Consumer Cyclical

GVIP
8.0%
PFM
4.0%

Consumer Defensive

GVIP
1.2%
PFM
12.0%

Basic Materials

GVIP

-

PFM
3.0%

Energy

GVIP

-

PFM
4.7%

Real Estate

GVIP

-

PFM
2.0%

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

GVIP
GVIP Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
GVIP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GVIP Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
GVIP Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
GVIP Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
GVIP Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank

PFM
PFM Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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.


GVIPPFMDifference
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

GVIP vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GVIP Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GVIP and PFM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GVIPPFMDifference

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


GVIPPFMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest 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 Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.33%

-0.23%

-0.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.59%

-6.94%

-0.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth 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


GVIPPFMDifference

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.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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.

Portfolio Optimizer

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