PBW vs. CAFG
Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG).
PBW and CAFG are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. PBW is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX). It was launched on Mar 3, 2005. CAFG is a passively managed fund by Pacer that tracks the performance of the Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross. It was launched on May 1, 2023. Both PBW and CAFG are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
PBW vs. CAFG - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
PBW vs. CAFG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF | 3.51% | 53.96% | -30.77% | -11.04% |
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF | 7.31% | 0.17% | 6.95% | 20.44% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PBW achieves a 3.51% return, which is significantly lower than CAFG's 7.31% return.
PBW
- 1D
- 4.99%
- 1M
- -2.46%
- YTD
- 3.51%
- 6M
- 9.88%
- 1Y
- 102.59%
- 3Y*
- -6.15%
- 5Y*
- -18.62%
- 10Y*
- 6.57%
CAFG
- 1D
- 2.95%
- 1M
- -2.69%
- YTD
- 7.31%
- 6M
- 5.20%
- 1Y
- 13.05%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
PBW vs. CAFG - Expense Ratio Comparison
PBW has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than CAFG's 0.59% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
PBW vs. CAFG — Risk / Return Rank
PBW
CAFG
PBW vs. CAFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) and Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG). 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.
| PBW | CAFG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.41 | 0.62 | +1.79 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.91 | 1.02 | +1.90 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | 1.13 | +0.22 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.66 | 1.27 | +3.39 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.87 | 4.89 | +7.98 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PBW | CAFG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.41 | 0.62 | +1.79 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.44 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.17 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.07 | 0.60 | -0.68 |
Correlation
The correlation between PBW and CAFG is 0.64, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
PBW vs. CAFG - Dividend Comparison
PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.86%, more than CAFG's 0.32% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF | 0.86% | 0.79% | 2.84% | 3.68% | 4.21% | 1.71% | 0.44% | 1.45% | 2.04% | 1.28% | 2.68% | 1.53% |
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF | 0.32% | 0.35% | 0.36% | 0.39% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
PBW vs. CAFG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PBW drawdown since its inception was -89.02%, which is greater than CAFG's maximum drawdown of -23.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBW and CAFG.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| PBW | CAFG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.02% | -23.66% | -65.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -21.24% | -13.08% | -8.16% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -84.98% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -89.02% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -73.91% | -3.74% | -70.17% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -62.86% | -5.81% | -57.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.70% | 3.40% | +4.30% |
Volatility
PBW vs. CAFG - Volatility Comparison
Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a higher volatility of 12.60% compared to Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) at 7.41%. This indicates that PBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| PBW | CAFG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.60% | 7.41% | +5.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 31.89% | 13.24% | +18.65% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 42.85% | 21.41% | +21.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 42.94% | 19.76% | +23.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 38.49% | 19.76% | +18.73% |