PFM vs. CAML

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) and CAML (Congress Large Cap Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. PFM is passively managed, while CAML is actively managed. Over the past year, PFM returned 19.65% vs 15.24% for CAML. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PFM charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CAML.

Performance

PFM vs. CAML - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) and Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PFM achieves a 8.18% return, which is significantly higher than CAML's 5.82% return.

PFM

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 3.40%
• YTD: 8.18%
• 6M: 7.73%
• 1Y: 19.65%
• 3Y*: 16.31%
• 5Y*: 10.63%
• 10Y*: 11.82%

CAML

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: 4.12%
• YTD: 5.82%
• 6M: 4.18%
• 1Y: 15.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PFM vs. CAML - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	8.18%	14.00%	16.87%	7.01%
CAML Congress Large Cap Growth ETF	5.82%	12.43%	23.24%	10.13%

Correlation

The correlation between PFM and CAML is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 23, 2023	0.73

The correlation between PFM and CAML has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

PFM vs. CAML - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PFM	CAML
Technology	24.7%	44.2%
Financial Services	18.5%	8.6%
Healthcare	14.9%	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	12.0%	2.3%
Industrials	11.1%	8.2%
Energy	4.7%	2.2%
Utilities	4.2%	3.4%
Consumer Cyclical	4.0%	9.9%
Basic Materials	3.0%	2.0%
Real Estate	2.0%	2.4%
Communication Services	1.1%	9.5%

Return for Risk

PFM vs. CAML — Risk / Return Rank

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

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 62
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

CAML

CAML Risk / Return Rank: 27
CAML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CAML Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CAML Omega Ratio Rank: 28
CAML Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
CAML Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

PFM vs. CAML - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) and Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML). 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.

	PFM	CAML	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	1.05	+1.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.07	1.54	+1.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.19	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	1.03	+1.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.28	3.39	+7.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PFM vs. CAML - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PFM Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is higher than the CAML Sharpe Ratio of 1.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PFM and CAML, 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

	PFM	CAML	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	1.05	+1.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.78	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	1.07	-0.54

Drawdowns

PFM vs. CAML - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PFM drawdown since its inception was -53.21%, which is greater than CAML's maximum drawdown of -21.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PFM and CAML.

Drawdown Indicators

	PFM	CAML	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.21%	-21.06%	-32.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.09%	-14.86%	+7.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.50%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.81%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.22%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.23%	-0.86%	+0.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.94%	-3.08%	-3.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.75%	4.50%	-2.75%

Volatility

PFM vs. CAML - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) is 2.04%, while Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) has a volatility of 3.65%. This indicates that PFM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CAML based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PFM	CAML	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.04%	3.65%	-1.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.13%	11.35%	-4.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.47%	14.63%	-5.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.54%	17.76%	-4.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.21%	17.76%	-2.55%

PFM vs. CAML - Expense Ratio Comparison

PFM has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is lower than CAML's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

PFM vs. CAML - Dividend Comparison

PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, while CAML has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CAML Congress Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	1.33%	1.41%	1.58%	1.86%	1.95%	1.69%	1.92%	1.94%	2.27%	1.70%	2.56%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PFM and CAML in my portfolio?

PFM and CAML have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PFM or CAML?

CAML has higher volatility (3.65%) compared to PFM (2.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PFM dropped -53.21% vs CAML's -21.06%.

Which ETF is better, PFM or CAML?

On 1-year performance, PFM leads with 19.65% vs 15.24% for CAML. On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PFM or CAML?

Over the 1-year period, PFM has performed better with a 19.65% return vs 15.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PFM or CAML?

PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CAML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PFM or CAML?

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.00% for CAML.

What is the main difference between PFM and CAML?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Congress. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for PFM and 0.65% for CAML.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.05), 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.