TMFS vs. PBW

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and PBW (Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. TMFS is actively managed, while PBW is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFS returned -1.01%/yr vs -13.75%/yr for PBW. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for PBW.

Performance

TMFS vs. PBW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a 1.80% return, which is significantly lower than PBW's 15.32% return.

TMFS

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 2.07%
• 6M: -1.01%
• YTD: 1.80%
• 1Y: 0.13%
• 3Y*: 6.79%
• 5Y*: -1.01%
• 10Y*: —

PBW

• 1D: 2.88%
• 1M: -12.37%
• 6M: 1.26%
• YTD: 15.32%
• 1Y: 57.99%
• 3Y*: -4.03%
• 5Y*: -13.75%
• 10Y*: 8.01%

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

TMFS vs. PBW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	1.80%	-1.59%	15.41%	25.40%	-33.15%	-2.38%	58.52%	40.19%	-6.14%
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	15.32%	53.96%	-30.77%	-20.03%	-44.55%	-29.86%	204.82%	62.58%	-2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFS and PBW is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 30, 2018	0.70

Over the past year, the correlation between TMFS and PBW has dropped to 0.44 - well below their long-term average of 0.70, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

TMFS vs. PBW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFS	PBW
Technology	24.4%	9.9%
Industrials	23.8%	28.0%
Healthcare	20.7%	-
Financial Services	13.2%	1.3%
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	12.7%
Real Estate	5.5%	-
Energy	3.1%	12.9%
Basic Materials	2.5%	13.5%
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	1.6%
Communication Services	-	-
Utilities	-	8.4%

Return for Risk

TMFS vs. PBW — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFS

TMFS Risk / Return Rank: 9
TMFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
TMFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
TMFS Omega Ratio Rank: 9
TMFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
TMFS Martin Ratio Rank: 10

PBW

PBW Risk / Return Rank: 47
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 42
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 45

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.

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.

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.

	TMFS	PBW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.01	1.35	-1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.16	1.85	-1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.22	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.01	2.14	-2.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.02	5.97	-5.94

TMFS vs. PBW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFS Sharpe Ratio is 0.01, which is lower than the PBW Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFS and PBW, 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFS	PBW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.79%	-89.02%	+40.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.73%	-27.22%	+11.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.05%	-68.04%	+40.99%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-45.68%	-84.50%	+38.82%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-89.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.52%	-70.94%	+53.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.45%	-62.92%	+43.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.74%	9.75%	-4.01%

Volatility

TMFS vs. PBW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) is 4.87%, while Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a volatility of 13.31%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	TMFS	PBW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.87%	13.31%	-8.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.11%	32.19%	-18.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.86%	43.17%	-23.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.03%	43.51%	-20.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.44%	39.10%	-13.66%

TMFS vs. PBW - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than PBW's 0.61% expense ratio.

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 1.35%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	1.35%	0.79%	2.84%	3.68%	4.21%	1.71%	0.44%	1.45%	2.04%	1.28%	2.68%	1.53%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFS and PBW in my portfolio?

TMFS and PBW have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFS or PBW?

PBW has higher volatility (13.31%) compared to TMFS (4.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs PBW's -89.02%.

Which ETF is better, TMFS or PBW?

On 5-year performance, TMFS leads with -1.01% vs -13.75% for PBW. On fees, PBW is cheaper at 0.61% per year. On volatility, TMFS has been the lower-risk option at 4.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFS or PBW?

Over the 5-year period, TMFS has performed better with a -1.01% return vs -13.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFS or PBW?

PBW is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TMFS or PBW?

PBW has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 0.00% for TMFS.

What is the main difference between TMFS and PBW?

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.61% for PBW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 vs 0.01), 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.