WOMN vs. DARP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

WOMN (Impact Shares YWCA Women’s Empowerment ETF) and DARP (Grizzle Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. WOMN is passively managed, while DARP is actively managed. Over the past year, WOMN returned 11.53% vs 82.62% for DARP. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

WOMN vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Impact Shares YWCA Women’s Empowerment ETF (WOMN) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WOMN achieves a 3.93% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 32.67% return.

WOMN

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: 2.66%
• YTD: 3.93%
• 6M: 4.39%
• 1Y: 11.53%
• 3Y*: 14.62%
• 5Y*: 8.60%
• 10Y*: —

DARP

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 8.18%
• YTD: 32.67%
• 6M: 34.22%
• 1Y: 82.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

WOMN vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
WOMN Impact Shares YWCA Women’s Empowerment ETF	3.93%	8.62%	16.95%	8.44%
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	32.67%	40.19%	24.63%	6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between WOMN and DARP is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 29, 2023	0.58

The correlation between WOMN and DARP shifts across timeframes, from 0.45 (1 year) to 0.58 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

WOMN vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WOMN	DARP
Technology	30.3%	45.8%
Financial Services	14.3%	-
Healthcare	11.0%	1.4%
Communication Services	9.8%	19.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	6.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	-
Industrials	6.8%	12.0%
Energy	6.1%	9.9%
Utilities	3.0%	5.4%
Real Estate	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	4.7%

Return for Risk

WOMN vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

WOMN

WOMN Risk / Return Rank: 30
WOMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
WOMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
WOMN Omega Ratio Rank: 28
WOMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
WOMN Martin Ratio Rank: 36

DARP

DARP Risk / Return Rank: 91
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

WOMN vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Impact Shares YWCA Women’s Empowerment ETF (WOMN) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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.

	WOMN	DARP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	3.59	-2.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.58	4.03	-2.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.54	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.48	7.03	-5.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.46	26.75	-21.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

WOMN vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WOMN Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 3.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WOMN and DARP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	WOMN	DARP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.07	3.59	-2.52
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.71	1.49	-0.78

Drawdowns

WOMN vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WOMN drawdown since its inception was -32.23%, which is greater than DARP's maximum drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WOMN and DARP.

Drawdown Indicators

	WOMN	DARP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.23%	-30.27%	-1.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.80%	-11.82%	+4.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.34%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.93%	-0.76%	-0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.53%	-4.64%	-0.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.12%	3.10%	-0.98%

Volatility

WOMN vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Impact Shares YWCA Women’s Empowerment ETF (WOMN) is 2.67%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 7.07%. This indicates that WOMN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WOMN	DARP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.67%	7.07%	-4.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.74%	17.49%	-9.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.82%	23.16%	-12.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.16%	26.11%	-9.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.70%	26.11%	-7.41%

WOMN vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both WOMN and DARP have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

WOMN vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

WOMN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.79%, more than DARP's 0.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	0.33%	0.43%	1.93%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WOMN Impact Shares YWCA Women’s Empowerment ETF	0.79%	0.76%	1.08%	1.80%	5.59%	3.10%	6.15%	1.12%	0.90%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WOMN and DARP in my portfolio?

WOMN and DARP have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, WOMN or DARP?

DARP has higher volatility (7.07%) compared to WOMN (2.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WOMN dropped -32.23% vs DARP's -30.27%.

Which ETF is better, WOMN or DARP?

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 82.62% vs 11.53% for WOMN. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, WOMN has been the lower-risk option at 2.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WOMN or DARP?

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 82.62% return vs 11.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WOMN or DARP?

WOMN and DARP have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, WOMN or DARP?

WOMN has the higher dividend yield at 0.79%, compared with 0.33% for DARP.

What is the main difference between WOMN and DARP?

They also come from different issuers: Impact Shares and Grizzle.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs 1.07), 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.