PWB vs. GRW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

PWB (Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. PWB is passively managed, while GRW is actively managed. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PWB charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.

Performance

PWB vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

PWB

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 10.85%
• YTD: 28.40%
• 6M: 28.76%
• 1Y: 46.56%
• 3Y*: 34.40%
• 5Y*: 18.57%
• 10Y*: 18.44%

GRW

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PWB vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
PWB Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF	1.72%
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF	1.61%

Correlation

The correlation between PWB and GRW is 0.50, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026	0.50

PWB vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PWB	GRW
Technology	44.6%	26.6%
Industrials	15.9%	38.1%
Communication Services	10.9%	9.1%
Financial Services	10.3%	9.8%
Consumer Defensive	8.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.2%	8.3%
Healthcare	3.6%	4.1%
Utilities	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	4.0%
Energy	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PWB vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWB

PWB Risk / Return Rank: 75
PWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
PWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
PWB Omega Ratio Rank: 70
PWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
PWB Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

PWB vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF (PWB) 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.

	PWB	GRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.27	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.95	—	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.10	—	—
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

	PWB	GRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.89	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	37.56	-36.95

Drawdowns

PWB vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWB drawdown since its inception was -52.58%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWB and GRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWB	GRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.58%	-0.13%	-52.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.11%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.10%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.41%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.36%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.13%	+0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.24%	-0.04%	-8.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.80%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PWB	GRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.39%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.03%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.48%	9.26%	+9.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.00%	9.26%	+11.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.71%	9.26%	+11.45%

PWB vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWB has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWB vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

Neither PWB nor GRW has 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%
PWB Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.08%	0.37%	0.31%	0.04%	0.21%	0.58%	0.97%	0.54%	0.82%	0.67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PWB and GRW in my portfolio?

PWB and GRW have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, PWB or GRW?

On fees, PWB is cheaper at 0.56% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PWB or GRW?

PWB is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

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

PWB and GRW have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between PWB and GRW?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for PWB and 0.75% for GRW.