RFDA vs. GRW
RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) and GRW (TCW Durable Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RFDA charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRW.
Performance
RFDA vs. GRW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
RFDA
- 1D
- -0.92%
- 1M
- 4.27%
- YTD
- 11.40%
- 6M
- 12.25%
- 1Y
- 29.49%
- 3Y*
- 19.19%
- 5Y*
- 13.17%
- 10Y*
- —
GRW
- 1D
- -0.32%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RFDA vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF | 0.96% |
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 1.29% |
Correlation
The correlation between RFDA and GRW is 0.20, 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 May 29, 2026 | 0.20 |
RFDA vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
RFDA
GRW
Technology
Financial Services
Energy
-
Industrials
Healthcare
Communication Services
Consumer Defensive
-
Consumer Cyclical
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
Technology
RFDA
GRW
Financial Services
RFDA
GRW
Energy
RFDA
GRW
-
Industrials
RFDA
GRW
Healthcare
RFDA
GRW
Communication Services
RFDA
GRW
Consumer Defensive
RFDA
GRW
-
Consumer Cyclical
RFDA
GRW
Real Estate
RFDA
GRW
-
Utilities
RFDA
GRW
-
Basic Materials
RFDA
GRW
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
RFDA vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank
RFDA
GRW
RFDA vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). 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.
| RFDA | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.44 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.87 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RFDA | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.55 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.84 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.79 | 14.00 | -13.20 |
Drawdowns
RFDA vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RFDA drawdown since its inception was -34.60%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFDA and GRW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RFDA | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.60% | -0.45% | -34.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.45% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.35% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.35% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.92% | -0.45% | -0.47% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.74% | -0.14% | -3.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.49% | — | — |
Volatility
RFDA vs. GRW - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RFDA | GRW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.66% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.47% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.64% | 10.19% | +1.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.73% | 10.19% | +5.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.85% | 10.19% | +6.66% |
RFDA vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison
RFDA has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
RFDA vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison
RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GRW TCW Durable Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF | 1.77% | 1.89% | 2.23% | 2.68% | 3.57% | 1.44% | 1.62% | 1.87% | 2.44% | 1.90% | 0.98% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RFDA and GRW have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, RFDA is cheaper at 0.52% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
RFDA is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.
RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.
They also come from different issuers: SS&C and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for RFDA and 0.75% for GRW.
Find the right allocation for RFDA and GRW
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