PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
TGRW vs. PFM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

TGRW vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF (TGRW) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TGRW achieves a 0.74% return, which is significantly lower than PFM's 7.43% return.


TGRW

1D
-1.34%
1M
-3.27%
YTD
0.74%
6M
-0.34%
1Y
15.30%
3Y*
19.72%
5Y*
7.54%
10Y*

PFM

1D
-0.16%
1M
0.12%
YTD
7.43%
6M
6.87%
1Y
18.00%
3Y*
15.64%
5Y*
10.77%
10Y*
11.76%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TGRW vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
TGRW
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF
0.74%15.62%29.94%48.87%-38.42%14.97%16.40%
PFM
Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF
7.43%14.00%16.87%11.40%-6.22%23.08%11.65%

Correlation

The correlation between TGRW and PFM is 0.53, 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

0.53

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

0.59

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

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2020

0.66

The correlation between TGRW and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.67 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TGRW vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
TGRW
PFM

Technology

52.6%
27.6%

Communication Services

16.5%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

13.1%
3.7%

Healthcare

6.6%
15.1%

Financial Services

5.2%
17.9%

Industrials

4.1%
10.7%

Consumer Defensive

0.8%
11.1%

Basic Materials

0.6%
2.8%

Real Estate

0.6%
2.0%

Energy

-

4.3%

Utilities

-

3.9%

Technology

TGRW
52.6%
PFM
27.6%

Communication Services

TGRW
16.5%
PFM
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

TGRW
13.1%
PFM
3.7%

Healthcare

TGRW
6.6%
PFM
15.1%

Financial Services

TGRW
5.2%
PFM
17.9%

Industrials

TGRW
4.1%
PFM
10.7%

Consumer Defensive

TGRW
0.8%
PFM
11.1%

Basic Materials

TGRW
0.6%
PFM
2.8%

Real Estate

TGRW
0.6%
PFM
2.0%

Energy

TGRW

-

PFM
4.3%

Utilities

TGRW

-

PFM
3.9%

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

TGRW vs. PFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TGRW
TGRW Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
TGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
TGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
TGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
TGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank

PFM
PFM Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 5959
Omega Ratio Rank
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
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.

TGRW vs. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF (TGRW) 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.


TGRWPFMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.02

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.49

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.34

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.82

2.55

-1.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.53

10.32

-7.78

TGRW vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TGRW Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is lower than the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TGRW and PFM, 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...

Drawdowns

TGRW vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TGRW drawdown since its inception was -43.33%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TGRW and PFM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


TGRWPFMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-43.33%

-53.21%

+9.88%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-18.84%

-7.09%

-11.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.18%

-14.50%

-8.68%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-43.33%

-17.81%

-25.52%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.51%

-1.01%

-5.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.40%

-6.93%

-5.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.05%

1.75%

+4.30%

Volatility

TGRW vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF (TGRW) has a higher volatility of 6.40% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.48%. This indicates that TGRW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


TGRWPFMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.40%

2.48%

+3.92%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.54%

7.21%

+6.33%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.40%

9.53%

+7.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

23.40%

13.51%

+9.89%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.04%

15.20%

+7.84%

TGRW vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

TGRW has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is lower than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.


Dividends

TGRW vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

TGRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.36%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
PFM
Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF
1.36%1.41%1.58%1.86%1.95%1.69%1.92%1.94%2.27%1.70%2.56%2.36%
TGRW
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.01%0.00%0.40%0.21%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


TGRW and PFM have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

TGRW has higher volatility (6.40%) compared to PFM (2.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TGRW dropped -43.33% vs PFM's -53.21%.

On 5-year performance, PFM leads with 10.77% vs 7.54% for TGRW. On fees, TGRW is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, PFM has performed better with a 10.77% return vs 7.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

TGRW is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for PFM.

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.36%, compared with 0.00% for TGRW.

They also come from different issuers: T. Rowe Price and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for TGRW and 0.53% for PFM.

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 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 TGRW 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