PWC vs. CGDV

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

PWC (Invesco Dynamic Market ETF) and CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PWC is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Dynamic Market Intellidex Index, while CGDV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group. PWC is passively managed, while CGDV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PWC returned 12.90%/yr vs 24.17%/yr for CGDV. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PWC charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGDV.

Performance

PWC vs. CGDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PWC achieves a 4.77% return, which is significantly lower than CGDV's 11.07% return.

PWC

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: -2.12%
• YTD: 4.77%
• 6M: 3.89%
• 1Y: 8.99%
• 3Y*: 12.90%
• 5Y*: 6.51%
• 10Y*: 9.59%

CGDV

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 11.07%
• 6M: 10.39%
• 1Y: 27.24%
• 3Y*: 24.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PWC vs. CGDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	4.77%	6.15%	17.46%	19.03%	-2.23%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	11.07%	25.50%	20.10%	28.81%	-0.44%

Correlation

The correlation between PWC and CGDV is 0.53, 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	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.81

Over the past year, the correlation between PWC and CGDV has dropped to 0.53 - well below their long-term average of 0.81, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

PWC vs. CGDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PWC	CGDV
Technology	26.1%	33.1%
Financial Services	14.0%	6.6%
Healthcare	12.7%	10.4%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	11.3%
Industrials	10.3%	12.9%
Communication Services	7.0%	8.3%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	6.0%
Energy	5.5%	4.4%
Real Estate	5.3%	1.1%
Basic Materials	3.5%	2.8%
Utilities	2.7%	1.0%

Return for Risk

PWC vs. CGDV — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWC

PWC Risk / Return Rank: 27
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 24
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 31

CGDV

CGDV Risk / Return Rank: 69
CGDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
CGDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
CGDV Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CGDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
CGDV Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

PWC vs. CGDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). 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.

	PWC	CGDV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.92	2.23	-1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.38	3.06	-1.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.41	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.40	2.81	-1.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.21	13.07	-8.86

PWC vs. CGDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWC Sharpe Ratio is 0.92, which is lower than the CGDV Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWC and CGDV, 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

PWC vs. CGDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWC drawdown since its inception was -78.13%, which is greater than CGDV's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWC and CGDV.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWC	CGDV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.13%	-21.82%	-56.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.45%	-9.75%	+3.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.12%	-14.28%	-0.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.58%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.45%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.37%	-1.79%	-1.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-36.13%	-3.59%	-32.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.14%	2.09%	+0.05%

Volatility

PWC vs. CGDV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) is 2.78%, while Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) has a volatility of 4.64%. This indicates that PWC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PWC	CGDV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.78%	4.64%	-1.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.26%	9.92%	-2.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.86%	12.28%	-2.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.03%	15.57%	+0.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.81%	15.57%	+3.24%

PWC vs. CGDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWC has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CGDV's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWC vs. CGDV - Dividend Comparison

PWC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.17%, more than CGDV's 1.18% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	1.18%	1.29%	1.60%	1.65%	1.36%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	1.81%	1.77%	1.58%	1.67%	1.51%	0.56%	1.09%	0.95%	1.44%	1.75%	1.35%	1.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PWC and CGDV in my portfolio?

PWC and CGDV have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PWC or CGDV?

CGDV has higher volatility (4.64%) compared to PWC (2.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWC dropped -78.13% vs CGDV's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, PWC or CGDV?

On 3-year performance, CGDV leads with 24.17% vs 12.90% for PWC. On fees, CGDV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, PWC has been the lower-risk option at 2.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PWC or CGDV?

Over the 3-year period, CGDV has performed better with a 24.17% return vs 12.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PWC or CGDV?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for PWC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PWC or CGDV?

PWC has the higher dividend yield at 2.17%, compared with 1.18% for CGDV.

What is the main difference between PWC and CGDV?

PWC is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while CGDV is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PWC and 0.33% for CGDV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 0.92), 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.