PAWZ vs. IMFL

Last updated Jun 17, 2026

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 -9.14%/yr vs 9.06%/yr for IMFL. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PAWZ charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for IMFL.

Performance

PAWZ vs. IMFL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) and Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF (IMFL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PAWZ achieves a -11.47% return, which is significantly lower than IMFL's 17.95% return.

PAWZ

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 4.84%
• YTD: -11.47%
• 6M: -11.85%
• 1Y: -15.91%
• 3Y*: -1.31%
• 5Y*: -9.14%
• 10Y*: —

IMFL

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 4.16%
• YTD: 17.95%
• 6M: 19.95%
• 1Y: 32.59%
• 3Y*: 16.29%
• 5Y*: 9.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

PAWZ vs. IMFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PAWZ ProShares Pet Care ETF	-11.47%	1.21%	3.88%	12.47%	-40.08%	6.41%
IMFL Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF	17.95%	30.89%	-3.57%	25.51%	-17.32%	7.00%

Correlation

The correlation between PAWZ and IMFL is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2021	0.60

The correlation between PAWZ and IMFL shifts across timeframes, from 0.49 (1 year) to 0.60 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PAWZ vs. IMFL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PAWZ	IMFL
Healthcare	32.6%	12.4%
Consumer Defensive	16.3%	11.7%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	7.7%
Basic Materials	5.0%	5.4%
Technology	4.2%	14.8%
Financial Services	4.1%	11.1%
Communication Services	-	3.6%
Energy	-	6.0%
Industrials	-	17.4%
Real Estate	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	3.9%

Return for Risk

PAWZ vs. IMFL — Risk / Return Rank

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

PAWZ

PAWZ Risk / Return Rank: 2
PAWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
PAWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
PAWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 2
PAWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
PAWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 0

IMFL

IMFL Risk / Return Rank: 61
IMFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
IMFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
IMFL Omega Ratio Rank: 62
IMFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
IMFL Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.97	1.99	-2.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.34	2.71	-4.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	1.36	-0.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.75	2.78	-3.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.77	9.76	-11.53

PAWZ vs. IMFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PAWZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.97, which is lower than the IMFL Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PAWZ and IMFL, 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	PAWZ	IMFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.07%	-33.26%	-16.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.26%	-11.77%	-9.49%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-41.10%	-0.23%	-40.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.64%	-7.20%	-15.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.99%	3.35%	+5.64%

Volatility

PAWZ vs. IMFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares Pet Care ETF (PAWZ) is 3.76%, while Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF (IMFL) has a volatility of 5.96%. This indicates that PAWZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IMFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PAWZ	IMFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.76%	5.96%	-2.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.44%	14.04%	-2.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.53%	16.44%	+0.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.19%	16.21%	+3.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.64%	16.09%	+5.55%

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 0.86%, less than IMFL's 2.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
IMFL Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF	2.86%	2.88%	3.56%	3.85%	3.35%	3.94%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PAWZ ProShares Pet Care ETF	0.86%	0.81%	0.63%	0.44%	0.54%	0.18%	0.14%	0.35%	0.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PAWZ and IMFL in my portfolio?

PAWZ and IMFL have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PAWZ or IMFL?

IMFL has higher volatility (5.96%) compared to PAWZ (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PAWZ dropped -50.07% vs IMFL's -33.26%.

Which ETF is better, PAWZ or IMFL?

On 5-year performance, IMFL leads with 9.06% vs -9.14% for PAWZ. On fees, IMFL is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, PAWZ has been the lower-risk option at 3.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PAWZ or IMFL?

Over the 5-year period, IMFL has performed better with a 9.06% return vs -9.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PAWZ or IMFL?

IMFL is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for PAWZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PAWZ or IMFL?

IMFL has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 0.86% for PAWZ.

What is the main difference between PAWZ and IMFL?

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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IMFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs -0.97), 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.