PCGG vs. GABF

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) and GABF (Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCGG is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Polen, while GABF is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Gabelli. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PCGG returned -5.25% vs 0.48% for GABF. Their 0.62 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PCGG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for GABF.

Performance

PCGG vs. GABF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) and Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF (GABF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCGG achieves a -5.73% return, which is significantly lower than GABF's 0.15% return.

PCGG

• 1D: 1.66%
• 1M: 2.39%
• 6M: -2.39%
• YTD: -5.73%
• 1Y: -5.25%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.00%

GABF

• 1D: 2.12%
• 1M: 2.01%
• 6M: 0.24%
• YTD: 0.15%
• 1Y: 0.48%
• 3Y*: 19.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.89%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GABF Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF	$107.51K	$101.42K	$192.29K
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	$21.56K	$40.61K	$39.96K

PCGG vs. GABF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-5.73%	1.62%	12.40%	4.17%
GABF Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF	0.15%	3.60%	44.38%	15.67%

Correlation

The correlation between PCGG and GABF is 0.59, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2023	0.62

The correlation between PCGG and GABF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

PCGG vs. GABF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCGG	GABF
Technology	41.4%	5.2%
Financial Services	15.4%	85.6%
Communication Services	15.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	-
Industrials	7.8%	4.9%
Healthcare	7.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	-
Basic Materials	2.1%	-
Utilities	2.0%	-
Real Estate	1.3%	4.3%
Energy	-	-

Return for Risk

PCGG vs. GABF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 7
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 7

GABF

GABF Risk / Return Rank: 12
GABF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
GABF Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
GABF Omega Ratio Rank: 11
GABF Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
GABF Martin Ratio Rank: 12

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

PCGG vs. GABF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) and Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF (GABF). 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.

	PCGG	GABF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.32	0.03	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.34	0.16	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	1.02	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.23	0.03	-0.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.50	0.06	-0.56

PCGG vs. GABF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.32, which is lower than the GABF Sharpe Ratio of 0.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCGG and GABF, 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

PCGG vs. GABF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCGG drawdown since its inception was -22.66%, which is greater than GABF's maximum drawdown of -20.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCGG and GABF.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCGG	GABF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.66%	-20.86%	-1.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.66%	-17.16%	-5.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.44%	-4.77%	-5.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.40%	-4.97%	-0.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.57%	7.90%	+2.67%

Volatility

PCGG vs. GABF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) is 4.62%, while Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF (GABF) has a volatility of 4.88%. This indicates that PCGG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GABF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PCGG	GABF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.62%	4.88%	-0.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.45%	13.34%	+0.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.30%	17.50%	-1.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.75%	20.39%	-3.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.75%	20.39%	-3.64%

PCGG vs. GABF - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCGG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than GABF's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCGG vs. GABF - Dividend Comparison

PCGG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GABF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
GABF Gabelli Financial Services Opportunities ETF	1.96%	1.96%	4.19%	4.95%	1.31%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCGG and GABF in my portfolio?

PCGG and GABF have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCGG or GABF?

GABF has higher volatility (4.88%) compared to PCGG (4.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCGG dropped -22.66% vs GABF's -20.86%.

Which ETF is better, PCGG or GABF?

On 1-year performance, GABF leads with 0.48% vs -5.25% for PCGG. On fees, GABF is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, PCGG has been the lower-risk option at 4.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCGG or GABF?

Over the 1-year period, GABF has performed better with a 0.48% return vs -5.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCGG or GABF?

GABF is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCGG.

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

GABF has the higher dividend yield at 1.96%, compared with 0.00% for PCGG.

What is the main difference between PCGG and GABF?

PCGG is categorized as Global Equities, while GABF is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Polen and Gabelli. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PCGG and 0.10% for GABF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GABF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.03 vs -0.32), 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.