FCAL vs PWZ
First Trust California Municipal High income ETF vs Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF
Which is better, FCAL or PWZ?
FCAL has been ahead.
PWZ has a lower expense ratio. FCAL led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93.
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 | FCAL | PWZ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.28%Best |
| AUM | $210M | $1.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 3.65% | 4.07% |
| Holdings | 564 | 2,504 |
| YTD Return | -3.09%Best | -4.44% |
| 1Y Return | -2.23%Best | -3.34% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +2.73%Best | +2.30% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.29%Best | -1.08% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.8%Best | 7.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -14.8%Best | -17.6% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $9,856Best | $9,472 |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Tax Preferred | Tax Preferred |
| Style | Municipal California | Municipal California |
| Inception | Jun 21, 2017 | Oct 11, 2007 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 27, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9.3 years).
FCAL vs PWZ 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 covers the 9.3 years both funds cover.
FCAL vs PWZ Performance
First Trust California Municipal High income ETF (FCAL) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Invesco California AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PWZ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year FCAL returned -2.23% while PWZ returned -3.34%. Year to date, FCAL is down 3.09% versus a loss of 4.44% for PWZ.
Over three years, FCAL compounded at +2.73% per year against +2.30% for PWZ; over five years the annualized figures are -0.29% and -1.08% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, FCAL has the edge at +0.90% annualized vs +0.25%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PWZ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 7.3% compared with 5.8% for FCAL. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -14.8% for FCAL and -17.6% for PWZ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FCAL charges 0.49% per year while PWZ charges 0.28%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $28 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FCAL currently yields 3.65% against 4.07% for PWZ.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 4 holdings in FCAL and 482 in PWZ, totalling 0.8% and 31.3% of the two funds. Neither is a share of a fund we can divide by, so no overlap percentage is shown here. Within what we can see, 2 positions appear in both.
2 positions in common, counted across the 4 positions we hold weights for in FCAL and 482 in PWZ, against full books of 564 and 2,504.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FCAL | Weight in PWZ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA CASPOL 5 11/21/20Caspol 5.000 11/21/45 | 0.46% | 0.09% | 0.37% |
| CA CASFIN 5 05/15/20California Municipal Finance Authority 5 05/15/2039 | 0.24% | 0.05% | 0.19% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of FCAL and PWZ you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FCAL or PWZ?
FCAL has an expense ratio of 0.49% while PWZ charges 0.28%. PWZ is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FCAL or PWZ?
Over the past year FCAL returned -2.23% vs -3.34% for PWZ, so FCAL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FCAL annualized +0.90% vs +0.25% for PWZ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FCAL or PWZ?
PWZ has been the more volatile fund at 7.3% annualized versus 5.8% for FCAL. Worst drawdown: FCAL -14.8% vs PWZ -17.6%.
Should I hold both FCAL and PWZ?
FCAL and PWZ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, FCAL or PWZ?
FCAL yields 3.65% while PWZ yields 4.07%, so PWZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PWZ better than FCAL?
PWZ has a lower expense ratio. FCAL led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.