PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MMLG vs. PFM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MMLG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF (MMLG) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MMLG achieves a 4.76% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 8.18% return.


MMLG

1D
-1.42%
1M
4.92%
YTD
4.76%
6M
4.14%
1Y
16.13%
3Y*
21.41%
5Y*
8.34%
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%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MMLG vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
MMLG
First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF
4.76%17.28%25.96%45.21%-39.18%13.23%20.61%
PFM
Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF
8.18%14.00%16.87%11.40%-6.22%23.08%11.80%

Correlation

The correlation between MMLG and PFM is 0.54, 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

0.54

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.60

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2020

0.65

The correlation between MMLG and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (1 year) to 0.67 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MMLG vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
MMLG
PFM

Technology

39.5%
24.7%

Financial Services

13.2%
18.5%

Consumer Cyclical

11.8%
4.0%

Industrials

10.5%
11.1%

Healthcare

9.2%
14.9%

Communication Services

7.9%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
12.0%

Basic Materials

1.3%
3.0%

Energy

1.3%
4.7%

Utilities

1.3%
4.2%

Real Estate

-

2.0%

Technology

MMLG
39.5%
PFM
24.7%

Financial Services

MMLG
13.2%
PFM
18.5%

Consumer Cyclical

MMLG
11.8%
PFM
4.0%

Industrials

MMLG
10.5%
PFM
11.1%

Healthcare

MMLG
9.2%
PFM
14.9%

Communication Services

MMLG
7.9%
PFM
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

MMLG
2.6%
PFM
12.0%

Basic Materials

MMLG
1.3%
PFM
3.0%

Energy

MMLG
1.3%
PFM
4.7%

Utilities

MMLG
1.3%
PFM
4.2%

Real Estate

MMLG

-

PFM
2.0%

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

MMLG vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MMLG
MMLG Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
MMLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MMLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
MMLG Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
MMLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
MMLG Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank

PFM
PFM Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

MMLG vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF (MMLG) 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.


MMLGPFMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.78

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.38

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.81

2.78

-1.97

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.34

11.28

-8.94

MMLG vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MMLG Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MMLG 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


MMLGPFMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.89

2.09

-1.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.34

0.79

-0.45

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.46

0.53

-0.07

Drawdowns

MMLG vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MMLG drawdown since its inception was -45.97%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MMLG and PFM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MMLGPFMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.97%

-53.21%

+7.24%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.89%

-7.09%

-12.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.57%

-14.50%

-12.07%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-45.97%

-17.81%

-28.16%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.17%

-0.23%

-1.94%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.36%

-6.94%

-7.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.91%

1.75%

+5.16%

Volatility

MMLG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF (MMLG) has a higher volatility of 4.37% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.04%. This indicates that MMLG'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


MMLGPFMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.37%

2.04%

+2.33%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.03%

7.13%

+6.90%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.22%

9.47%

+8.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.94%

13.54%

+11.40%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.54%

15.21%

+9.33%

MMLG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MMLG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.


Dividends

MMLG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

MMLG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
MMLG
First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.25%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


MMLG and PFM have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MMLG has higher volatility (4.37%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MMLG dropped -45.97% vs PFM's -53.21%.

On 5-year performance, PFM leads with 10.63% vs 8.34% for MMLG. 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 5-year period, PFM has performed better with a 10.63% return vs 8.34%. 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 0.85% for MMLG.

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.00% for MMLG.

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for MMLG and 0.53% for PFM.

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 0.89), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MMLG 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