AQLG vs GRW
HCM Large Cap Growth ETF vs TCW Durable Growth ETF
Which is better, AQLG or GRW?
AQLG costs less.
AQLG has a lower expense ratio. AQLG is less concentrated, with 35.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.3%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AQLG | GRW |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.65%Best | 0.75% |
| AUM | $78M | $64M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 132 | 64 |
| YTD Return | +4.25%Best | +0.53% |
| 1Y Return | - | -2.86% |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.5%Best | 52.3% |
| Fund Family | Highland Capital Management | TCW ETFs |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 8, 2026 | May 5, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
AQLG vs GRW growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
AQLG vs GRW Performance
HCM Large Cap Growth ETF (AQLG) is an ETF from Highland Capital Management and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) is an ETF from TCW ETFs. Year to date, AQLG is up 4.25% versus a gain of 0.53% for GRW.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AQLG charges 0.65% per year while GRW charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $65 vs $75 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AQLG currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for GRW.
Holdings Overlap
21.8% of AQLG's money is in holdings GRW also owns. 47.8% of GRW's money is in holdings AQLG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
12 positions in common, counted across the 129 positions we hold weights for in AQLG and 30 in GRW, against full books of 132 and 64.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 16 positions for GRW that do not appear in our book for AQLG (42.7% of the fund), and 111 for AQLG that do not appear in GRW (75.3%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in AQLG | Weight in GRW | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 3.11% | 6.69% | 3.58% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.69% | 4.41% | 0.28% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.09% | 5.83% | 2.74% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.00% | 5.87% | 2.87% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 3.03% | 2.84% | 0.19% |
| GEGeneral Electric Co. | 0.04% | 5.49% | 5.45% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.66% | 1.91% | 0.75% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.01% | 3.26% | 2.25% |
| ORLYO'Eilly Automotive, Inc. | 0.57% | 3.32% | 2.75% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 0.53% | 3.08% | 2.55% |
47.8% of GRW is already inside AQLG.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AQLG or GRW?
AQLG has an expense ratio of 0.65% while GRW charges 0.75%. AQLG is the cheaper option, by $10 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between AQLG and GRW?
47.8% of GRW's money is in holdings AQLG also owns. 47.8% of GRW's is in holdings AQLG also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 129 positions we hold weights for in AQLG and 30 in GRW.
Which pays a higher dividend, AQLG or GRW?
AQLG yields 0.00% while GRW yields 0.00%, so GRW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is GRW better than AQLG?
AQLG has a lower expense ratio. AQLG is less concentrated, with 35.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.