PAWZ vs. IMFL
PAWZ (ProShares Pet Care ETF) and IMFL (Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF) are both Global Equities funds - PAWZ tracks the FactSet Pet Care Index while IMFL tracks the FTSE Developed ex US Invesco Dynamic Multifactor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PAWZ returned -9.39%/yr vs 8.60%/yr for IMFL. Their 0.59 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PAWZ charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for IMFL.
Performance
PAWZ vs. IMFL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PAWZ achieves a -8.33% return, which is significantly lower than IMFL's 14.28% return.
PAWZ
- 1D
- 2.03%
- 1M
- 3.85%
- 6M
- -10.65%
- YTD
- -8.33%
- 1Y
- -12.73%
- 3Y*
- -0.92%
- 5Y*
- -9.39%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.51%
IMFL
- 1D
- 0.30%
- 1M
- -2.16%
- 6M
- 7.53%
- YTD
- 14.28%
- 1Y
- 25.96%
- 3Y*
- 14.41%
- 5Y*
- 8.60%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 9.08%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.41M | $2.20M | $2.22M | |
| $91.97K | $88.04K | $268.83K |
PAWZ vs. IMFL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PAWZ ProShares Pet Care ETF | -8.33% | 1.21% | 3.88% | 12.47% | -40.08% | 6.41% |
IMFL Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF | 14.28% | 30.89% | -3.57% | 25.51% | -17.32% | 7.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between PAWZ and IMFL is 0.43, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.43 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.51 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.59 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021 | 0.59 |
The correlation between PAWZ and IMFL shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (1 year) to 0.59 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
PAWZ vs. IMFL - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
PAWZ
IMFL
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Technology
Financial Services
Basic Materials
Communication Services
-
Energy
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Healthcare
PAWZ
IMFL
Consumer Cyclical
PAWZ
IMFL
Consumer Defensive
PAWZ
IMFL
Technology
PAWZ
IMFL
Financial Services
PAWZ
IMFL
Basic Materials
PAWZ
IMFL
Communication Services
PAWZ
-
IMFL
Energy
PAWZ
-
IMFL
Industrials
PAWZ
-
IMFL
Real Estate
PAWZ
-
IMFL
Utilities
PAWZ
-
IMFL
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
PAWZ vs. IMFL — Risk / Return Rank
PAWZ
IMFL
PAWZ vs. IMFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) and Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF (IMFL). 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.
| PAWZ | IMFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.28 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.11 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.89 | 1.28 | -0.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.61 | 2.21 | -2.82 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.23 | 7.65 | -8.88 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PAWZ vs. IMFL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PAWZ drawdown since its inception was -50.07%, which is greater than IMFL's maximum drawdown of -33.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PAWZ and IMFL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PAWZ | IMFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -50.07% | -33.26% | -16.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -21.10% | -11.77% | -9.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.12% | -13.52% | -9.60% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -50.07% | -33.26% | -16.81% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -39.02% | -3.53% | -35.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.89% | -7.11% | -15.78% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.41% | 3.41% | +7.00% |
Volatility
PAWZ vs. IMFL - Volatility Comparison
ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) has a higher volatility of 5.44% compared to Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF (IMFL) at 4.16%. This indicates that PAWZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IMFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PAWZ | IMFL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.44% | 4.16% | +1.28% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.96% | 14.71% | -1.75% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.17% | 16.99% | +0.18% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.35% | 16.21% | +4.14% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.63% | 16.11% | +5.52% |
PAWZ vs. IMFL - Expense Ratio Comparison
PAWZ has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IMFL's 0.34% expense ratio.
Dividends
PAWZ vs. IMFL - Dividend Comparison
PAWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than IMFL's 2.96% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IMFL Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF | 2.96% | 2.88% | 3.56% | 3.85% | 3.35% | 3.94% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PAWZ ProShares Pet Care ETF | 0.70% | 0.81% | 0.63% | 0.44% | 0.54% | 0.18% | 0.14% | 0.35% | 0.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PAWZ and IMFL have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PAWZ has higher volatility (5.44%) compared to IMFL (4.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PAWZ dropped -50.07% vs IMFL's -33.26%.
On 5-year performance, IMFL leads with 8.60% vs -9.39% for PAWZ. On fees, IMFL is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, IMFL has been the lower-risk option at 4.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IMFL has performed better with a 8.60% return vs -9.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IMFL is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for PAWZ.
IMFL has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 0.70% for PAWZ.
PAWZ tracks FactSet Pet Care Index, while IMFL tracks FTSE Developed ex US Invesco Dynamic Multifactor Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for PAWZ and 0.34% for IMFL.
IMFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs -0.75), 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 PAWZ and IMFL
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