KRMA vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

KRMA (Global X Conscious Companies ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. KRMA is passively managed, while GRW is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. KRMA charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

KRMA vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Conscious Companies ETF (KRMA) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

KRMA

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: 5.83%
• YTD: 12.23%
• 6M: 12.43%
• 1Y: 28.28%
• 3Y*: 19.17%
• 5Y*: 10.98%
• 10Y*: —

GRW

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

KRMA vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
KRMA Global X Conscious Companies ETF	1.39%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.46%

Correlation

The correlation between KRMA and GRW is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	0.90

KRMA vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KRMA	GRW
Technology	41.8%	26.6%
Financial Services	11.5%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.8%	8.3%
Communication Services	9.4%	9.1%
Healthcare	8.7%	4.1%
Industrials	7.1%	38.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	-
Energy	2.7%	-
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	1.6%	4.0%
Utilities	0.9%	-

Return for Risk

KRMA vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

KRMA

KRMA Risk / Return Rank: 71
KRMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
KRMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
KRMA Omega Ratio Rank: 69
KRMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
KRMA Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

KRMA vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Conscious Companies ETF (KRMA) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). 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.

	KRMA	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.19	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.29	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.96	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	KRMA	GRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.76	13.58	-12.82

Drawdowns

KRMA vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KRMA drawdown since its inception was -36.16%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KRMA and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	KRMA	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.16%	-0.45%	-35.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.62%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.41%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.12%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.65%	-0.27%	-0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.91%	-0.17%	-4.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	KRMA	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.07%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.34%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.30%	8.89%	+3.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.18%	8.89%	+8.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.50%	8.89%	+9.61%

KRMA vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

KRMA has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

KRMA vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

KRMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.31%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KRMA Global X Conscious Companies ETF	2.31%	2.59%	0.91%	1.16%	0.86%	1.07%	0.96%	1.52%	1.82%	1.21%	0.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KRMA and GRW in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, KRMA and GRW move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, KRMA or GRW?

On fees, KRMA is cheaper at 0.43% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, KRMA or GRW?

KRMA is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

KRMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.31%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between KRMA and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for KRMA and 0.75% for GRW.