REGS vs. PFM
REGS (Columbia Large Cap Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. REGS is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. REGS charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.
Performance
REGS vs. PFM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
REGS
- 1D
- -1.96%
- 1M
- 0.19%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
PFM
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- 1.66%
- 6M
- 6.86%
- YTD
- 9.21%
- 1Y
- 15.52%
- 3Y*
- 14.39%
- 5Y*
- 10.46%
- 10Y*
- 11.37%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.73%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $965.66K | $973.46K | $1.01M | |
| $63.76K | $100.06K | $153.78K |
REGS vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
REGS Columbia Large Cap Growth ETF | 9.56% |
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 8.82% |
Correlation
The correlation between REGS and PFM is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 16, 2026 | 0.45 |
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
REGS vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank
REGS
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
PFM
REGS vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Large Cap Growth ETF (REGS) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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.
| REGS | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.30 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.20 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 8.90 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
REGS vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum REGS drawdown since its inception was -7.59%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for REGS and PFM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| REGS | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -7.59% | -53.21% | +45.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -7.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.50% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -17.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.10% | -0.66% | -5.44% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.56% | -6.90% | +4.34% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.75% | — |
Volatility
REGS vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| REGS | PFM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.02% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 6.95% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.02% | 9.41% | +10.61% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.02% | 13.46% | +6.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.02% | 15.18% | +4.84% |
REGS vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison
REGS has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
REGS vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison
REGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF | 1.33% | 1.41% | 1.58% | 1.86% | 1.95% | 1.69% | 1.92% | 1.94% | 2.27% | 1.70% | 2.56% | 2.36% |
REGS Columbia Large Cap 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% |
Frequently Asked Questions
REGS and PFM have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, REGS is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
REGS is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.
PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.00% for REGS.
They also come from different issuers: Columbia Threadneedle and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for REGS and 0.53% for PFM.
Find the right allocation for REGS and PFM
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