TMDV vs. GVLU

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

TMDV (ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF) and GVLU (Gotham 1000 Value ETF) are both Mid Cap Value Equities funds. TMDV is passively managed, while GVLU is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMDV returned 6.48%/yr vs 15.20%/yr for GVLU. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TMDV charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.51%/yr for GVLU.

Performance

TMDV vs. GVLU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF (TMDV) and Gotham 1000 Value ETF (GVLU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMDV achieves a 9.14% return, which is significantly higher than GVLU's 6.15% return.

TMDV

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 3.29%
• YTD: 9.14%
• 6M: 8.08%
• 1Y: 11.29%
• 3Y*: 6.48%
• 5Y*: 3.80%
• 10Y*: —

GVLU

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: -0.74%
• YTD: 6.15%
• 6M: 4.80%
• 1Y: 16.27%
• 3Y*: 15.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMDV vs. GVLU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
TMDV ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF	9.14%	2.91%	2.64%	2.25%	1.05%
GVLU Gotham 1000 Value ETF	6.15%	11.24%	11.09%	18.02%	-4.22%

Correlation

The correlation between TMDV and GVLU is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 8, 2022	0.83

The correlation between TMDV and GVLU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

TMDV vs. GVLU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMDV	GVLU
Consumer Defensive	23.5%	9.2%
Financial Services	16.1%	14.9%
Industrials	16.0%	10.2%
Utilities	12.2%	0.4%
Basic Materials	12.2%	6.5%
Consumer Cyclical	5.5%	17.3%
Healthcare	5.4%	11.9%
Real Estate	4.8%	0.7%
Energy	2.8%	8.9%
Technology	1.6%	16.6%
Communication Services	-	3.4%

Return for Risk

TMDV vs. GVLU — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMDV

TMDV Risk / Return Rank: 26
TMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
TMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
TMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 25
TMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
TMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 24

GVLU

GVLU Risk / Return Rank: 40
GVLU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
GVLU Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
GVLU Omega Ratio Rank: 34
GVLU Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
GVLU Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

TMDV vs. GVLU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF (TMDV) and Gotham 1000 Value ETF (GVLU). 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.

	TMDV	GVLU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.94	1.22	-0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.46	1.90	-0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.21	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.15	2.01	-0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.78	6.41	-3.63

TMDV vs. GVLU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMDV Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is comparable to the GVLU Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMDV and GVLU, 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

TMDV vs. GVLU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMDV drawdown since its inception was -33.42%, which is greater than GVLU's maximum drawdown of -20.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMDV and GVLU.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMDV	GVLU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.42%	-20.82%	-12.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.82%	-8.14%	-1.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.02%	-20.82%	+4.80%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.11%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.44%	-2.30%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.41%	-4.14%	-1.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.07%	2.55%	+1.52%

Volatility

TMDV vs. GVLU - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF (TMDV) and Gotham 1000 Value ETF (GVLU) have volatilities of 3.27% and 3.13%, 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

	TMDV	GVLU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.27%	3.13%	+0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.61%	9.12%	-0.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.13%	13.42%	-1.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.42%	17.71%	-3.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.60%	17.71%	+0.89%

TMDV vs. GVLU - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMDV has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than GVLU's 0.51% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMDV vs. GVLU - Dividend Comparison

TMDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, less than GVLU's 6.07% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GVLU Gotham 1000 Value ETF	6.07%	6.44%	2.88%	1.62%	0.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TMDV ProShares Russell U.S. Dividend Growers ETF	2.51%	2.65%	2.70%	2.45%	2.46%	2.14%	2.28%	0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMDV and GVLU in my portfolio?

TMDV and GVLU have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMDV or GVLU?

TMDV has higher volatility (3.27%) compared to GVLU (3.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMDV dropped -33.42% vs GVLU's -20.82%.

Which ETF is better, TMDV or GVLU?

On 3-year performance, GVLU leads with 15.20% vs 6.48% for TMDV. On fees, TMDV is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, GVLU has been the lower-risk option at 3.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMDV or GVLU?

Over the 3-year period, GVLU has performed better with a 15.20% return vs 6.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMDV or GVLU?

TMDV is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.51% for GVLU.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TMDV or GVLU?

GVLU has the higher dividend yield at 6.07%, compared with 2.51% for TMDV.

What is the main difference between TMDV and GVLU?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Gotham. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for TMDV and 0.51% for GVLU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GVLU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs 0.94), 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.