MFSG vs. PFM
MFSG (MFS Active Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. MFSG is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past year, MFSG returned 21.54% vs 19.65% for PFM. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MFSG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.
Performance
MFSG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MFSG achieves a 7.55% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 8.18% return.
MFSG
- 1D
- -0.94%
- 1M
- 4.46%
- YTD
- 7.55%
- 6M
- 7.63%
- 1Y
- 21.54%
- 3Y*
- —
- 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%
MFSG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
MFSG MFS Active Growth ETF | 7.55% | 14.51% | -2.74% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 8.18% | 14.00% | -3.55% |
Correlation
The correlation between MFSG and PFM is 0.57, 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 | 0.57 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2024 | 0.59 |
The correlation between MFSG and PFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
MFSG vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank
MFSG
PFM
MFSG vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) 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.
| MFSG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.73 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.17 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.38 | -0.14 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.34 | 2.78 | -1.44 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.66 | 11.28 | -6.62 |
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
| MFSG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.35 | 2.09 | -0.73 |
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 | 0.60 | 0.53 | +0.07 |
Drawdowns
MFSG vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MFSG drawdown since its inception was -23.24%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFSG and PFM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MFSG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -23.24% | -53.21% | +29.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.15% | -7.09% | -9.06% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.50% | — |
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 | -1.01% | -0.23% | -0.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.67% | -6.94% | +2.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.63% | 1.75% | +2.88% |
Volatility
MFSG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison
MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) has a higher volatility of 3.71% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that MFSG'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
| MFSG | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.71% | 2.04% | +1.67% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.41% | 7.13% | +5.28% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.00% | 9.47% | +6.53% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.69% | 13.54% | +8.15% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.69% | 15.21% | +6.48% |
MFSG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison
MFSG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
MFSG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison
MFSG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than PFM's 1.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MFSG MFS Active Growth ETF | 0.07% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
MFSG and PFM have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MFSG has higher volatility (3.71%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFSG dropped -23.24% vs PFM's -53.21%.
On 1-year performance, MFSG leads with 21.54% vs 19.65% for PFM. On fees, MFSG is cheaper at 0.49% 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 1-year period, MFSG has performed better with a 21.54% return vs 19.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
MFSG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.
PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.07% for MFSG.
They also come from different issuers: MFS and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MFSG and 0.53% for PFM.
PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.35), 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 MFSG 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