IWL vs. PFM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - IWL tracks the Russell Top 200 Index while PFM tracks the NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWL returned 16.38%/yr vs 11.82%/yr for PFM. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

IWL vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWL achieves a 10.03% return, which is significantly higher than PFM's 8.18% return. Over the past 10 years, IWL has outperformed PFM with an annualized return of 16.38%, while PFM has yielded a comparatively lower 11.82% annualized return.

IWL

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: 5.18%
• YTD: 10.03%
• 6M: 10.03%
• 1Y: 28.50%
• 3Y*: 23.42%
• 5Y*: 14.59%
• 10Y*: 16.38%

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)

IWL vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF	10.03%	19.09%	27.12%	29.77%	-19.89%	27.79%	22.10%	31.42%	-3.30%	22.90%
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 IWL and PFM is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2009	0.84

The correlation between IWL and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (1 year) to 0.85 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWL vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWL	PFM
Technology	40.9%	24.7%
Communication Services	12.2%	1.1%
Financial Services	11.3%	18.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	4.0%
Healthcare	8.5%	14.9%
Industrials	6.1%	11.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	12.0%
Energy	2.5%	4.7%
Utilities	1.7%	4.2%
Basic Materials	1.4%	3.0%
Real Estate	1.0%	2.0%

Return for Risk

IWL vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWL

IWL Risk / Return Rank: 67
IWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
IWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
IWL Omega Ratio Rank: 69
IWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
IWL Martin Ratio Rank: 69

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 62
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

IWL vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) 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.

	IWL	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.35	2.09	+0.26
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	3.07	+0.13
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.38	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.91	2.78	+0.13
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.92	11.28	+1.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWL vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.35, which is comparable to the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWL 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWL	PFM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.35	2.09	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85	0.79	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.91	0.78	+0.13
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.88	0.53	+0.36

Drawdowns

IWL vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWL drawdown since its inception was -32.71%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWL and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWL	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.71%	-53.21%	+20.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.83%	-7.09%	-2.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.15%	-14.50%	-4.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.65%	-17.81%	-7.84%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.71%	-32.22%	-0.49%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.83%	-0.23%	-0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.88%	-6.94%	+3.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.21%	1.75%	+0.46%

Volatility

IWL vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) has a higher volatility of 2.98% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that IWL'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.

Volatility by Period

	IWL	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.98%	2.04%	+0.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.15%	7.13%	+2.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.19%	9.47%	+2.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.17%	13.54%	+3.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.08%	15.21%	+2.87%

IWL vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWL vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.82%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF	0.82%	0.90%	1.04%	1.30%	1.54%	1.12%	1.30%	1.96%	1.93%	1.69%	1.96%	2.14%
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

Can I hold both IWL and PFM in my portfolio?

IWL and PFM have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWL or PFM?

IWL has higher volatility (2.98%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWL dropped -32.71% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, IWL or PFM?

On 10-year performance, IWL leads with 16.38% vs 11.82% for PFM. On fees, IWL is cheaper at 0.15% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, IWL or PFM?

Over the 10-year period, IWL has performed better with a 16.38% return vs 11.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWL or PFM?

IWL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWL or PFM?

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.82% for IWL.

What is the main difference between IWL and PFM?

IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index, while PFM tracks NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWL and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs 2.09), 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.