TMFS vs. PBW
Compare and contrast key facts about Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW).
TMFS and PBW are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. TMFS is an actively managed fund by Motley Fool. It was launched on Oct 29, 2018. PBW is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX). It was launched on Mar 3, 2005.
Performance
TMFS vs. PBW - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
TMFS vs. PBW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | -8.10% | -1.59% | 15.41% | 25.40% | -33.15% | -2.38% | 58.52% | 40.19% | -8.11% |
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF | 3.51% | 53.96% | -30.77% | -20.03% | -44.55% | -29.86% | 204.82% | 62.58% | -5.82% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a -8.10% return, which is significantly lower than PBW's 3.51% return.
TMFS
- 1D
- 3.19%
- 1M
- -9.83%
- YTD
- -8.10%
- 6M
- -7.25%
- 1Y
- -1.30%
- 3Y*
- 6.23%
- 5Y*
- -3.08%
- 10Y*
- —
PBW
- 1D
- 4.99%
- 1M
- -2.46%
- YTD
- 3.51%
- 6M
- 9.88%
- 1Y
- 102.59%
- 3Y*
- -6.15%
- 5Y*
- -18.62%
- 10Y*
- 6.57%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
TMFS vs. PBW - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than PBW's 0.61% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
TMFS vs. PBW — Risk / Return Rank
TMFS
PBW
TMFS vs. PBW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW). 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.
| TMFS | PBW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.05 | 2.41 | -2.46 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.10 | 2.91 | -2.81 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 1.35 | -0.34 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.09 | 4.66 | -4.75 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.25 | 12.87 | -13.13 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| TMFS | PBW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.05 | 2.41 | -2.46 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.13 | -0.44 | +0.30 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.17 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.31 | -0.07 | +0.38 |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFS and PBW is 0.71, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
TMFS vs. PBW - Dividend Comparison
TMFS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.86%.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.37% | 5.57% | 2.65% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF | 0.86% | 0.79% | 2.84% | 3.68% | 4.21% | 1.71% | 0.44% | 1.45% | 2.04% | 1.28% | 2.68% | 1.53% |
Drawdowns
TMFS vs. PBW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, smaller than the maximum PBW drawdown of -89.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and PBW.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFS | PBW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.79% | -89.02% | +40.23% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.73% | -21.24% | +5.51% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.68% | -84.98% | +39.30% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -89.02% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -25.54% | -73.91% | +48.37% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.45% | -62.86% | +43.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.27% | 7.70% | -2.43% |
Volatility
TMFS vs. PBW - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) is 6.89%, while Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a volatility of 12.60%. This indicates that TMFS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PBW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| TMFS | PBW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.89% | 12.60% | -5.71% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.48% | 31.89% | -17.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.44% | 42.85% | -18.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.98% | 42.94% | -19.96% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.65% | 38.49% | -12.84% |