NZAC vs. PCGG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NZAC (SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF) and PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) are both Global Equities funds. NZAC is passively managed, while PCGG is actively managed. Over the past year, NZAC returned 24.74% vs -5.83% for PCGG. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NZAC charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for PCGG.

Performance

NZAC vs. PCGG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NZAC achieves a 8.83% return, which is significantly higher than PCGG's -6.93% return.

NZAC

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: 4.49%
• YTD: 8.83%
• 6M: 9.51%
• 1Y: 24.74%
• 3Y*: 19.06%
• 5Y*: 9.88%
• 10Y*: 12.16%

PCGG

• 1D: -1.46%
• 1M: 1.53%
• YTD: -6.93%
• 6M: -6.74%
• 1Y: -5.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NZAC vs. PCGG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	8.83%	20.55%	16.67%	6.47%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-6.93%	1.62%	12.40%	4.01%

Correlation

The correlation between NZAC and PCGG is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2023	0.80

The correlation between NZAC and PCGG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

NZAC vs. PCGG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NZAC	PCGG
Technology	34.3%	40.1%
Financial Services	13.1%	17.5%
Communication Services	8.5%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	9.4%
Healthcare	7.8%	13.0%
Industrials	7.3%	-
Real Estate	5.2%	2.0%
Basic Materials	1.9%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Energy	1.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.0%	2.3%

Return for Risk

NZAC vs. PCGG — Risk / Return Rank

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

NZAC

NZAC Risk / Return Rank: 56
NZAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
NZAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
NZAC Omega Ratio Rank: 55
NZAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
NZAC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 6
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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.

NZAC vs. PCGG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG). 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.

	NZAC	PCGG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	-0.38	+2.30
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.71	-0.43	+3.14
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	0.95	+0.39
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	-0.26	+2.72
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.68	-0.64	+11.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NZAC vs. PCGG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NZAC Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is higher than the PCGG Sharpe Ratio of -0.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NZAC and PCGG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NZAC	PCGG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.92	-0.38	+2.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	0.22	+0.39

Drawdowns

NZAC vs. PCGG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NZAC drawdown since its inception was -33.72%, which is greater than PCGG's maximum drawdown of -22.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NZAC and PCGG.

Drawdown Indicators

	NZAC	PCGG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.72%	-22.66%	-11.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.10%	-22.66%	+12.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.19%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.31%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-11.59%	+10.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.32%	-4.95%	-0.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.32%	9.13%	-6.81%

Volatility

NZAC vs. PCGG - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) have volatilities of 3.72% and 3.80%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NZAC	PCGG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.72%	3.80%	-0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.34%	12.06%	-1.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.94%	15.27%	-2.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.81%	16.64%	+0.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.14%	16.64%	+0.50%

NZAC vs. PCGG - Expense Ratio Comparison

NZAC has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than PCGG's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

NZAC vs. PCGG - Dividend Comparison

NZAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, while PCGG has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	2.04%	1.90%	1.88%	1.65%	1.81%	1.62%	1.59%	2.17%	2.53%	2.20%	2.00%	2.40%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NZAC and PCGG in my portfolio?

NZAC and PCGG have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NZAC or PCGG?

PCGG has higher volatility (3.80%) compared to NZAC (3.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NZAC dropped -33.72% vs PCGG's -22.66%.

Which ETF is better, NZAC or PCGG?

On 1-year performance, NZAC leads with 24.74% vs -5.83% for PCGG. On fees, NZAC is cheaper at 0.12% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NZAC or PCGG?

Over the 1-year period, NZAC has performed better with a 24.74% return vs -5.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NZAC or PCGG?

NZAC is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCGG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NZAC or PCGG?

NZAC has the higher dividend yield at 2.04%, compared with 0.00% for PCGG.

What is the main difference between NZAC and PCGG?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and Polen. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for NZAC and 0.85% for PCGG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NZAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs -0.38), 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.