IWLG vs. PFM

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

IWLG (NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWLG is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWLG returned 21.69%/yr vs 16.25%/yr for PFM. Their 0.67 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IWLG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

IWLG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) 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, IWLG achieves a 5.56% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 12.14% return.

IWLG

• 1D: 2.81%
• 1M: 3.33%
• 6M: 10.45%
• YTD: 5.56%
• 1Y: 9.25%
• 3Y*: 21.69%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 22.63%

PFM

• 1D: 1.35%
• 1M: 2.51%
• 6M: 8.64%
• YTD: 12.14%
• 1Y: 19.59%
• 3Y*: 16.25%
• 5Y*: 10.95%
• 10Y*: 11.71%
• ALL TIME*: 8.85%

*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)
IWLG NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF	$1.72M	$1.42M	$1.37M
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	$750.58K	$862.11K	$985.51K

IWLG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWLG NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF	5.56%	14.73%	31.47%	43.25%	1.48%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	12.14%	14.00%	16.87%	11.40%	8.79%

Correlation

The correlation between IWLG and PFM is 0.50, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.50
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2022	0.67

The correlation between IWLG and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (1 year) to 0.67 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWLG vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWLG	PFM
Technology	44.9%	23.4%
Industrials	17.2%	11.6%
Communication Services	15.6%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	4.0%
Financial Services	7.0%	19.0%
Healthcare	5.4%	16.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	11.3%
Utilities	1.4%	4.1%
Basic Materials	1.2%	3.0%
Energy	-	4.2%
Real Estate	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

IWLG vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IWLG

IWLG Risk / Return Rank: 19
IWLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
IWLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
IWLG Omega Ratio Rank: 20
IWLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
IWLG Martin Ratio Rank: 19

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 79
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 81
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

IWLG vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) 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.

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.

	IWLG	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.49	2.08	-1.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.80	3.03	-2.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.38	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.48	2.77	-2.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.39	11.35	-9.96

IWLG vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWLG Sharpe Ratio is 0.49, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWLG 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.

Drawdowns

IWLG vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWLG drawdown since its inception was -23.19%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWLG and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWLG	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.19%	-53.21%	+30.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.45%	-7.09%	-12.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.19%	-14.50%	-8.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.81%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.42%	0.00%	-1.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.56%	-6.89%	+2.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.67%	1.73%	+4.94%

Volatility

IWLG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) has a higher volatility of 7.00% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.75%. This indicates that IWLG'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

	IWLG	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.00%	2.75%	+4.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.47%	7.18%	+8.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.88%	9.53%	+9.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.20%	13.48%	+7.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.20%	15.19%	+6.01%

IWLG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWLG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWLG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

IWLG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.30%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWLG NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	1.34%	0.01%	0.05%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	1.30%	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 IWLG and PFM in my portfolio?

IWLG and PFM have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWLG or PFM?

IWLG has higher volatility (7.00%) compared to PFM (2.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWLG dropped -23.19% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, IWLG or PFM?

On 3-year performance, IWLG leads with 21.69% vs 16.25% for PFM. On fees, IWLG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWLG or PFM?

Over the 3-year period, IWLG has performed better with a 21.69% return vs 16.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWLG or PFM?

IWLG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 0.00% for IWLG.

What is the main difference between IWLG and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: NYLI and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for IWLG and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 0.49), 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.