LCLG vs. PFM
LCLG (Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LCLG is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LCLG returned 30.13%/yr vs 16.31%/yr for PFM. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LCLG charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.
Performance
LCLG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LCLG achieves a 19.42% return, which is significantly higher than PFM's 8.18% return.
LCLG
- 1D
- 0.47%
- 1M
- 11.82%
- YTD
- 19.42%
- 6M
- 17.86%
- 1Y
- 39.05%
- 3Y*
- 30.13%
- 5Y*
- —
- 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%
LCLG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF | 19.42% | 18.15% | 32.04% | 35.45% | -8.58% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 8.18% | 14.00% | 16.87% | 11.40% | 0.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between LCLG and PFM is 0.71, 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 | 0.71 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.75 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2022 | 0.79 |
The correlation between LCLG and PFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.
LCLG vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
LCLG
PFM
Technology
Communication Services
Industrials
Consumer Cyclical
Financial Services
Healthcare
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Technology
LCLG
PFM
Communication Services
LCLG
PFM
Industrials
LCLG
PFM
Consumer Cyclical
LCLG
PFM
Financial Services
LCLG
PFM
Healthcare
LCLG
PFM
Basic Materials
LCLG
PFM
Consumer Defensive
LCLG
PFM
Energy
LCLG
-
PFM
Real Estate
LCLG
-
PFM
Utilities
LCLG
-
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
LCLG vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank
LCLG
PFM
LCLG vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) 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.
| LCLG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.03 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.25 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.38 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.85 | 2.78 | +0.07 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.52 | 11.28 | +0.24 |
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
| LCLG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.11 | 2.09 | +0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.79 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.78 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.14 | 0.53 | +0.61 |
Drawdowns
LCLG vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LCLG drawdown since its inception was -25.79%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCLG and PFM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LCLG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.79% | -53.21% | +27.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.75% | -7.09% | -6.66% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.79% | -14.50% | -11.29% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -17.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.23% | +0.23% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.48% | -6.94% | +2.46% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.40% | 1.75% | +1.65% |
Volatility
LCLG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison
Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) has a higher volatility of 5.85% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that LCLG'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
| LCLG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.85% | 2.04% | +3.81% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.77% | 7.13% | +7.64% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.60% | 9.47% | +9.13% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.60% | 13.54% | +8.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.60% | 15.21% | +6.39% |
LCLG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison
LCLG has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
LCLG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison
LCLG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.06% | 0.97% | 2.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
LCLG and PFM have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LCLG has higher volatility (5.85%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCLG dropped -25.79% vs PFM's -53.21%.
On 3-year performance, LCLG leads with 30.13% vs 16.31% for PFM. On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% 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 3-year period, LCLG has performed better with a 30.13% return vs 16.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LCLG.
PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.00% for LCLG.
They also come from different issuers: Logan and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for LCLG and 0.53% for PFM.
LCLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 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.
Find the right allocation for LCLG 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