PALC vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PALC (Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. PALC is passively managed, while GRW is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PALC charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

PALC vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

PALC

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 6.95%
• YTD: 11.39%
• 6M: 12.77%
• 1Y: 21.51%
• 3Y*: 17.82%
• 5Y*: 9.40%
• 10Y*: —

GRW

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PALC vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
PALC Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF	1.56%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.29%

Correlation

The correlation between PALC and GRW is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	0.80

PALC vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PALC	GRW
Financial Services	22.6%	9.8%
Technology	15.2%	26.6%
Industrials	14.1%	38.1%
Healthcare	11.9%	4.1%
Energy	10.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	10.6%	-
Communication Services	6.2%	9.1%
Consumer Cyclical	4.9%	8.3%
Basic Materials	2.2%	4.0%
Utilities	1.5%	-
Real Estate	0.3%	-

Return for Risk

PALC vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

PALC

PALC Risk / Return Rank: 52
PALC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
PALC Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
PALC Omega Ratio Rank: 51
PALC Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
PALC Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

PALC vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). 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.

	PALC	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.65	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.98	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PALC	GRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.87	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.98	14.00	-13.01

Drawdowns

PALC vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PALC drawdown since its inception was -24.45%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALC and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PALC	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.45%	-0.45%	-24.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.94%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.39%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.45%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-0.45%	+0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.33%	-0.14%	-6.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PALC	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.55%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.58%	10.19%	+1.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.22%	10.19%	+6.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.07%	10.19%	+6.88%

PALC vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PALC has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PALC vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

PALC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.04%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PALC Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF	1.04%	1.08%	0.93%	0.74%	1.69%	0.64%	0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PALC and GRW in my portfolio?

PALC and GRW have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, PALC or GRW?

On fees, PALC is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PALC or GRW?

PALC is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PALC or GRW?

PALC has the higher dividend yield at 1.04%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

What is the main difference between PALC and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PALC and 0.75% for GRW.