NBGX vs. PFM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NBGX (Neuberger Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. NBGX is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past year, NBGX returned 17.99% vs 19.37% for PFM. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NBGX charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

NBGX vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Growth ETF (NBGX) 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, NBGX achieves a 3.93% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 7.60% return.

NBGX

• 1D: -1.22%
• 1M: -1.16%
• YTD: 3.93%
• 6M: 4.10%
• 1Y: 17.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PFM

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 7.60%
• 6M: 7.06%
• 1Y: 19.37%
• 3Y*: 15.70%
• 5Y*: 10.97%
• 10Y*: 11.78%

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

NBGX vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NBGX Neuberger Growth ETF	3.93%	16.40%	-1.22%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	7.60%	14.00%	0.11%

Correlation

The correlation between NBGX and PFM is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.65

The correlation between NBGX and PFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NBGX vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBGX

NBGX Risk / Return Rank: 32
NBGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
NBGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
NBGX Omega Ratio Rank: 34
NBGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
NBGX Martin Ratio Rank: 30

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 63
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

NBGX vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Growth ETF (NBGX) 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.

	NBGX	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	2.04	-0.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	2.98	-1.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.37	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.22	2.74	-1.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.13	11.11	-6.98

NBGX vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBGX Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBGX 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

NBGX vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBGX drawdown since its inception was -21.55%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBGX and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBGX	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.55%	-53.21%	+31.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.86%	-7.09%	-7.77%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.96%	-0.85%	-2.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.89%	-6.93%	+3.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.37%	1.75%	+2.62%

Volatility

NBGX vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

Neuberger Growth ETF (NBGX) has a higher volatility of 5.12% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.47%. This indicates that NBGX'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

	NBGX	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.12%	2.47%	+2.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.51%	7.20%	+4.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.78%	9.55%	+5.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.04%	13.52%	+6.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.04%	15.22%	+4.82%

NBGX vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBGX has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBGX vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

NBGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than PFM's 1.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NBGX Neuberger Growth ETF	0.39%	0.41%	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	1.70%	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 NBGX and PFM in my portfolio?

NBGX and PFM have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBGX or PFM?

NBGX has higher volatility (5.12%) compared to PFM (2.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBGX dropped -21.55% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, NBGX or PFM?

On 1-year performance, PFM leads with 19.37% vs 17.99% for NBGX. On fees, NBGX is cheaper at 0.44% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBGX or PFM?

Over the 1-year period, PFM has performed better with a 19.37% return vs 17.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBGX or PFM?

NBGX is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.70%, compared with 0.39% for NBGX.

What is the main difference between NBGX and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for NBGX and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.23), 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.