PJFG vs TCHP
PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF vs T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF
Which is better, PJFG or TCHP?
Nearly the same fund. TCHP costs less.
TCHP has a lower expense ratio. PJFG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. TCHP is less concentrated, with 59.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 61.0%.
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 | PJFG | TCHP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.57%Best |
| AUM | $148M | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 78 | 65 |
| YTD Return | +8.89%Best | +2.74% |
| 1Y Return | +10.08%Best | +5.10% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.92%Best | +21.81% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.18% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.1% | 16.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.2% | -22.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $23,806Best | $23,010 |
| Top 10 Weight | 61.0% | 59.3%Best |
| Fund Family | PGIM Investments | T.Rowe Price |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 12, 2022 | Aug 4, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 14, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.8 years).
PJFG vs TCHP 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 3.8 years both funds cover.
PJFG vs TCHP Performance
PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF (PJFG) is an ETF from PGIM Investments and T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF (TCHP) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price. Over the past year PJFG returned +10.08% while TCHP returned +5.10%. Year to date, PJFG is up 8.89% versus a gain of 2.74% for TCHP.
Over three years, PJFG compounded at +22.92% per year against +21.81% for TCHP. Across the full 4-year window we track, PJFG has the edge at +25.64% annualized vs +24.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PJFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.1% compared with 16.5% for TCHP. 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 -24.2% for PJFG and -22.9% for TCHP. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PJFG charges 0.75% per year while TCHP charges 0.57%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $57 annually, a gap of $18 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PJFG currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for TCHP.
Holdings Overlap
82.0% of PJFG's money is in holdings TCHP also owns. 67.6% of TCHP's money is in holdings PJFG also owns.
Most of PJFG is already inside TCHP. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
23 positions in common, counted across the 37 positions we hold weights for in PJFG and 62 in TCHP, against full books of 78 and 65.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 37 positions for TCHP that do not appear in our book for PJFG (30.3% of the fund), and 13 for PJFG that do not appear in TCHP (16.9%).
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 PJFG | Weight in TCHP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 12.21% | 17.43% | 5.22% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 9.23% | 5.50% | 3.73% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.42% | 5.92% | 0.50% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.74% | 4.94% | 1.80% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.72% | 5.79% | 1.07% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 5.20% | 3.60% | 1.60% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.17% | 3.53% | 0.64% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.52% | 2.92% | 1.60% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 4.26% | 3.05% | 1.21% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 3.53% | 1.99% | 1.54% |
82.0% of PJFG is already inside TCHP.
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, PJFG or TCHP?
PJFG has an expense ratio of 0.75% while TCHP charges 0.57%. TCHP is the cheaper option, by $18 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PJFG or TCHP?
Over the past year PJFG returned +10.08% vs +5.10% for TCHP, so PJFG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), PJFG annualized +25.64% vs +24.52% for TCHP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PJFG or TCHP?
PJFG has been the more volatile fund at 18.1% annualized versus 16.5% for TCHP. Worst drawdown: PJFG -24.2% vs TCHP -22.9%.
Should I hold both PJFG and TCHP?
PJFG and TCHP have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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.
What is the holdings overlap between PJFG and TCHP?
82.0% of PJFG's money is in holdings TCHP also owns. 67.6% of TCHP's is in holdings PJFG also owns. They hold 23 positions in common, counted across the 37 positions we hold weights for in PJFG and 62 in TCHP.
Which pays a higher dividend, PJFG or TCHP?
PJFG yields 0.00% while TCHP yields 0.00%, so TCHP currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TCHP better than PJFG?
TCHP has a lower expense ratio. PJFG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. TCHP is less concentrated, with 59.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 61.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.