PWC vs. FDLS

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

PWC (Invesco Dynamic Market ETF) and FDLS (Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - PWC tracks the Dynamic Market Intellidex Index while FDLS tracks the WI Fidelis Multi-Cap, Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PWC returned 12.43%/yr vs 18.59%/yr for FDLS. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PWC charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.76%/yr for FDLS.

Performance

PWC vs. FDLS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) and Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PWC achieves a 8.19% return, which is significantly lower than FDLS's 18.60% return.

PWC

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 0.59%
• 6M: 4.86%
• YTD: 8.19%
• 1Y: 11.01%
• 3Y*: 12.43%
• 5Y*: 7.23%
• 10Y*: 9.34%

FDLS

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 1.59%
• 6M: 12.22%
• YTD: 18.60%
• 1Y: 33.84%
• 3Y*: 18.59%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PWC vs. FDLS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	8.19%	6.15%	17.46%	19.03%	-2.15%
FDLS Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF	18.60%	22.47%	7.41%	20.70%	-1.68%

Correlation

The correlation between PWC and FDLS is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 24, 2022	0.77

Over the past year, the correlation between PWC and FDLS has dropped to 0.57 - well below their long-term average of 0.77, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

PWC vs. FDLS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PWC	FDLS
Industrials	17.2%	17.8%
Technology	16.4%	26.0%
Financial Services	15.3%	13.5%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	5.8%
Healthcare	9.7%	11.8%
Communication Services	6.6%	2.5%
Real Estate	5.5%	3.1%
Utilities	5.3%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	5.0%
Energy	4.7%	8.0%
Basic Materials	1.5%	5.0%

Return for Risk

PWC vs. FDLS — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWC

PWC Risk / Return Rank: 39
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 36
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 40

FDLS

FDLS Risk / Return Rank: 81
FDLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FDLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
FDLS Omega Ratio Rank: 75
FDLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
FDLS Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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. FDLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) and Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS). 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	FDLS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	2.00	-0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	2.83	-1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.35	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.71	3.56	-1.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.11	14.11	-8.99

PWC vs. FDLS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWC Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is lower than the FDLS Sharpe Ratio of 2.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWC and FDLS, 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. FDLS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWC drawdown since its inception was -78.13%, which is greater than FDLS's maximum drawdown of -23.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWC and FDLS.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWC	FDLS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.13%	-23.32%	-54.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.45%	-9.55%	+3.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.12%	-23.32%	+8.20%
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	-0.21%	-0.47%	+0.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-36.05%	-3.80%	-32.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.16%	2.40%	-0.24%

Volatility

PWC vs. FDLS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) is 2.86%, while Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS) has a volatility of 4.10%. This indicates that PWC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FDLS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PWC	FDLS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.86%	4.10%	-1.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.18%	12.76%	-5.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.74%	17.01%	-7.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.98%	18.98%	-3.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.72%	18.98%	-0.26%

PWC vs. FDLS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWC has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than FDLS's 0.76% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWC vs. FDLS - Dividend Comparison

PWC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, more than FDLS's 0.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FDLS Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF	0.80%	0.86%	7.26%	0.97%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	1.75%	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 FDLS in my portfolio?

PWC and FDLS have a correlation of 0.57, 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 FDLS?

FDLS has higher volatility (4.10%) compared to PWC (2.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWC dropped -78.13% vs FDLS's -23.32%.

Which ETF is better, PWC or FDLS?

On 3-year performance, FDLS leads with 18.59% vs 12.43% for PWC. On fees, PWC is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, PWC has been the lower-risk option at 2.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PWC or FDLS?

Over the 3-year period, FDLS has performed better with a 18.59% return vs 12.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PWC or FDLS?

PWC is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for FDLS.

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

PWC has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.80% for FDLS.

What is the main difference between PWC and FDLS?

PWC tracks Dynamic Market Intellidex Index, while FDLS tracks WI Fidelis Multi-Cap, Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PWC and 0.76% for FDLS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 1.14), 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.