PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PWC vs. GRPM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PWC vs. GRPM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PWC achieves a 5.85% return, which is significantly lower than GRPM's 7.11% return. Over the past 10 years, PWC has underperformed GRPM with an annualized return of 9.52%, while GRPM has yielded a comparatively higher 10.99% annualized return.


PWC

1D
-0.13%
1M
0.31%
YTD
5.85%
6M
6.04%
1Y
8.50%
3Y*
13.71%
5Y*
6.10%
10Y*
9.52%

GRPM

1D
-0.11%
1M
2.30%
YTD
7.11%
6M
6.51%
1Y
21.90%
3Y*
14.94%
5Y*
7.66%
10Y*
10.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PWC vs. GRPM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PWC
Invesco Dynamic Market ETF
5.85%6.15%17.46%19.03%-16.01%19.38%8.52%13.47%-6.40%20.16%
GRPM
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF
7.11%7.81%15.67%18.79%-11.63%26.35%15.60%23.05%-12.45%13.05%

Correlation

The correlation between PWC and GRPM is 0.65, 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

0.65

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.75

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2010

0.82

The correlation between PWC and GRPM shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.82 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PWC vs. GRPM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PWC
GRPM

Technology

26.1%
16.6%

Financial Services

14.0%
29.9%

Healthcare

12.7%
12.3%

Consumer Cyclical

11.5%
9.7%

Industrials

10.3%
10.0%

Communication Services

7.0%

-

Consumer Defensive

6.8%
5.8%

Real Estate

5.6%

-

Energy

5.5%
15.8%

Basic Materials

3.5%

-

Utilities

2.7%

-

Technology

PWC
26.1%
GRPM
16.6%

Financial Services

PWC
14.0%
GRPM
29.9%

Healthcare

PWC
12.7%
GRPM
12.3%

Consumer Cyclical

PWC
11.5%
GRPM
9.7%

Industrials

PWC
10.3%
GRPM
10.0%

Communication Services

PWC
7.0%
GRPM

-

Consumer Defensive

PWC
6.8%
GRPM
5.8%

Real Estate

PWC
5.6%
GRPM

-

Energy

PWC
5.5%
GRPM
15.8%

Basic Materials

PWC
3.5%
GRPM

-

Utilities

PWC
2.7%
GRPM

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

PWC vs. GRPM — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWC
PWC Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
PWC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PWC Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
PWC Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
PWC Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
PWC Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank

GRPM
GRPM Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
GRPM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GRPM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
GRPM Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
GRPM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
GRPM Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
Martin Ratio Rank
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. GRPM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM). 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.


PWCGRPMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.50

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.71

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.24

-0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.32

2.89

-1.56

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.06

8.54

-4.48

PWC vs. GRPM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWC Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is lower than the GRPM Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWC and GRPM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


PWCGRPMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.88

1.37

-0.50

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

0.37

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.50

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.11

0.55

-0.43

Drawdowns

PWC vs. GRPM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWC drawdown since its inception was -78.13%, which is greater than GRPM's maximum drawdown of -43.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWC and GRPM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PWCGRPMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-78.13%

-43.12%

-35.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.45%

-7.62%

+1.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.12%

-28.09%

+12.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.58%

-28.09%

+1.51%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.45%

-43.12%

+3.67%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.37%

-0.11%

-2.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-36.21%

-5.71%

-30.50%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.10%

2.57%

-0.47%

Volatility

PWC vs. GRPM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dynamic Market ETF (PWC) is 2.14%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) has a volatility of 3.82%. This indicates that PWC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GRPM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PWCGRPMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.14%

3.82%

-1.68%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.19%

10.44%

-3.25%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.75%

16.13%

-6.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.07%

20.90%

-4.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.81%

22.25%

-3.44%

PWC vs. GRPM - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWC has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than GRPM's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

PWC vs. GRPM - Dividend Comparison

PWC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%, more than GRPM's 0.96% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GRPM
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF
0.96%1.19%0.95%0.96%1.28%0.92%1.16%1.25%1.50%1.14%1.00%1.43%
PWC
Invesco Dynamic Market ETF
1.68%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


PWC and GRPM have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GRPM has higher volatility (3.82%) compared to PWC (2.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWC dropped -78.13% vs GRPM's -43.12%.

On 10-year performance, GRPM leads with 10.99% vs 9.52% for PWC. On fees, GRPM is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, PWC has been the lower-risk option at 2.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GRPM has performed better with a 10.99% return vs 9.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GRPM is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for PWC.

PWC has the higher dividend yield at 1.68%, compared with 0.96% for GRPM.

PWC tracks Dynamic Market Intellidex Index, while GRPM tracks S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PWC and 0.35% for GRPM.

GRPM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 vs 0.88), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PWC and GRPM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer