PCGG vs. IMFL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) and IMFL (Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. PCGG is actively managed, while IMFL is passively managed. Over the past year, PCGG returned -5.83% vs 33.05% for IMFL. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PCGG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for IMFL.

Performance

PCGG vs. IMFL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) 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, PCGG achieves a -6.93% return, which is significantly lower than IMFL's 17.58% return.

PCGG

• 1D: -1.46%
• 1M: 1.53%
• YTD: -6.93%
• 6M: -6.74%
• 1Y: -5.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IMFL

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 5.50%
• YTD: 17.58%
• 6M: 20.95%
• 1Y: 33.05%
• 3Y*: 17.51%
• 5Y*: 8.50%
• 10Y*: —

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

PCGG vs. IMFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-6.93%	1.62%	12.40%	4.01%
IMFL Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF	17.58%	30.89%	-3.57%	6.92%

Correlation

The correlation between PCGG and IMFL is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2023	0.56

The correlation between PCGG and IMFL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

PCGG vs. IMFL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCGG	IMFL
Technology	40.1%	15.4%
Financial Services	17.5%	11.0%
Communication Services	15.8%	3.6%
Healthcare	13.0%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	11.6%
Real Estate	2.0%	1.5%
Basic Materials	-	5.5%
Energy	-	5.9%
Industrials	-	17.4%
Utilities	-	3.9%

Return for Risk

PCGG vs. IMFL — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 6
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 6

IMFL

IMFL Risk / Return Rank: 60
IMFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
IMFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
IMFL Omega Ratio Rank: 61
IMFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
IMFL Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

PCGG vs. IMFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) 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.

	PCGG	IMFL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.38	2.12	-2.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.43	2.88	-3.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	1.37	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.26	2.82	-3.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.64	9.97	-10.61
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PCGG vs. IMFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.38, which is lower than the IMFL Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCGG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PCGG	IMFL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.38	2.12	-2.50
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.53	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	0.62	-0.40

Drawdowns

PCGG vs. IMFL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCGG drawdown since its inception was -22.66%, smaller than the maximum IMFL drawdown of -33.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCGG and IMFL.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCGG	IMFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.66%	-33.26%	+10.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.66%	-11.77%	-10.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.52%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.26%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.59%	-0.54%	-11.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.95%	-7.24%	+2.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.13%	3.32%	+5.81%

Volatility

PCGG vs. IMFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) is 3.80%, while Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF (IMFL) has a volatility of 5.74%. This indicates that PCGG 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

	PCGG	IMFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.80%	5.74%	-1.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.06%	13.08%	-1.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.27%	15.71%	-0.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.64%	16.05%	+0.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.64%	15.99%	+0.65%

PCGG vs. IMFL - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCGG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than IMFL's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCGG vs. IMFL - Dividend Comparison

PCGG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IMFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.87%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IMFL Invesco International Developed Dynamic Multifactor ETF	2.87%	2.88%	3.56%	3.85%	3.35%	3.94%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCGG and IMFL in my portfolio?

PCGG and IMFL have a correlation of 0.58, 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 IMFL?

IMFL has higher volatility (5.74%) compared to PCGG (3.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCGG dropped -22.66% vs IMFL's -33.26%.

Which ETF is better, PCGG or IMFL?

On 1-year performance, IMFL leads with 33.05% vs -5.83% for PCGG. On fees, IMFL is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, PCGG has been the lower-risk option at 3.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCGG or IMFL?

Over the 1-year period, IMFL has performed better with a 33.05% return vs -5.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCGG or IMFL?

IMFL is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCGG.

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

IMFL has the higher dividend yield at 2.87%, compared with 0.00% for PCGG.

What is the main difference between PCGG and IMFL?

They also come from different issuers: Polen and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PCGG and 0.34% for IMFL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IMFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs -0.38), 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.