PFM vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. PFM is passively managed, while GRW is actively managed. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PFM charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

PFM vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

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%

GRW

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PFM vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	0.58%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.29%

Correlation

The correlation between PFM and GRW is 0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	0.00

PFM vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PFM	GRW
Technology	24.7%	26.6%
Financial Services	18.5%	9.8%
Healthcare	14.9%	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	12.0%	-
Industrials	11.1%	38.1%
Energy	4.7%	-
Utilities	4.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	4.0%	8.3%
Basic Materials	3.0%	4.0%
Real Estate	2.0%	-
Communication Services	1.1%	9.1%

Return for Risk

PFM vs. GRW — 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

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. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). 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	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.07	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.28	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PFM	GRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	—	—
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	14.00	-13.47

Drawdowns

PFM vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PFM drawdown since its inception was -53.21%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PFM and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PFM	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.21%	-0.45%	-52.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.09%	—	—
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%	-0.45%	+0.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.94%	-0.14%	-6.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.75%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PFM	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.04%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.13%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.47%	10.19%	-0.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.54%	10.19%	+3.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.21%	10.19%	+5.02%

PFM vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PFM has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PFM vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 GRW in my portfolio?

PFM and GRW have a correlation of 0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, PFM or GRW?

On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PFM or GRW?

PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

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

What is the main difference between PFM and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for PFM and 0.75% for GRW.