PWC vs. FLDZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PWC (Invesco Dynamic Market ETF) and FLDZ (RiverNorth Patriot ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. PWC is passively managed, while FLDZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PWC returned 13.17%/yr vs 13.59%/yr for FLDZ. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PWC charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for FLDZ.

Performance

PWC vs. FLDZ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PWC achieves a 5.50% return, which is significantly lower than FLDZ's 6.09% return.

PWC

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: -1.43%
• YTD: 5.50%
• 6M: 4.60%
• 1Y: 8.55%
• 3Y*: 13.17%
• 5Y*: 6.41%
• 10Y*: 9.67%

FLDZ

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 1.06%
• YTD: 6.09%
• 6M: 4.91%
• 1Y: 8.68%
• 3Y*: 13.59%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PWC vs. FLDZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	5.50%	6.15%	17.46%	19.03%	-16.01%
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	6.09%	6.66%	15.99%	12.15%	-12.07%

Correlation

The correlation between PWC and FLDZ is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2022	0.88

The correlation between PWC and FLDZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

PWC vs. FLDZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PWC	FLDZ
Technology	26.1%	2.8%
Financial Services	14.0%	15.6%
Healthcare	12.7%	12.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	14.4%
Industrials	10.3%	13.1%
Communication Services	7.0%	4.0%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	4.9%
Energy	5.5%	10.8%
Real Estate	5.3%	8.3%
Basic Materials	3.5%	1.6%
Utilities	2.7%	11.6%

Return for Risk

PWC vs. FLDZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWC

PWC Risk / Return Rank: 26
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 23
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 30

FLDZ

FLDZ Risk / Return Rank: 25
FLDZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
FLDZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FLDZ Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FLDZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
FLDZ Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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. FLDZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). 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	FLDZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.88	0.77	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.31	1.16	+0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.14	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.33	1.39	-0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.99	4.22	-0.23

PWC vs. FLDZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWC Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is comparable to the FLDZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWC and FLDZ, 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. FLDZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWC drawdown since its inception was -78.13%, which is greater than FLDZ's maximum drawdown of -19.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWC and FLDZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWC	FLDZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.13%	-19.54%	-58.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.45%	-6.25%	-0.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.12%	-17.43%	+2.31%
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	-2.69%	-0.87%	-1.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-36.13%	-5.92%	-30.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.15%	2.06%	+0.09%

Volatility

PWC vs. FLDZ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) have volatilities of 2.87% and 2.83%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PWC	FLDZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.87%	2.83%	+0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.29%	7.84%	-0.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.86%	11.42%	-1.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.03%	16.85%	-0.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.79%	16.85%	+1.94%

PWC vs. FLDZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWC has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than FLDZ's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWC vs. FLDZ - Dividend Comparison

PWC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.80%, more than FLDZ's 1.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	1.45%	1.54%	1.17%	1.39%	1.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PWC Invesco Dynamic Market ETF	1.80%	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 FLDZ in my portfolio?

PWC and FLDZ have a correlation of 0.80, 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 FLDZ?

PWC has higher volatility (2.87%) compared to FLDZ (2.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWC dropped -78.13% vs FLDZ's -19.54%.

Which ETF is better, PWC or FLDZ?

On 3-year performance, FLDZ leads with 13.59% vs 13.17% for PWC. On fees, PWC is cheaper at 0.60% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PWC or FLDZ?

Over the 3-year period, FLDZ has performed better with a 13.59% return vs 13.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PWC or FLDZ?

PWC is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for FLDZ.

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

PWC has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 1.45% for FLDZ.

What is the main difference between PWC and FLDZ?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PWC and 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PWC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.88 vs 0.77), 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.