Keep tabs on your favorite ETFs with a personalized weekly tracker. Create a Watchlist now →
PFMvsRJDIETF Comparison
Invesco Dividend Achievers ETF (PFM) and RJ Eagle GCM Dividend Select Income ETF (RJDI) belong to the same industry segment: US High Dividend. PFM's top 3 sector exposures are Information Technology, Health Care and Financials. In contrast, RJDI's top sector exposures are Information Technology, Financials and Health Care. PFM is less expensive with a Total Expense Ratio (TER) of 0.52%, versus 0.55% for RJDI. PFM is up 1.63% year-to-date (YTD) with -$22M in YTD flows. RJDI performs better with 7.96% YTD performance, and +$12M in YTD flows. Run a side-by-side ETF comparison of PFM and RJDI below, and assess how they stack up in performance, liquidity, risk, exposure, holdings, and more, helping you select the best ETF for your investments.
PFM vs RJDI performance and flow charts
Performance
Cumulative Flows
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | PFM RJDI | -3.35%-2.57% | +0.36%+5.78% | +1.63%+7.96% | +16.55%n/a | +56.72%n/a | +68.54%n/a |
| Flows | PFM RJDI | -$5M+$10M | -$12M+$23M | -$22M+$12M | -$38M- | -$179M- | -$94M- |
| 3M | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volatility | PFM RJDI | +9.32%+11.20% | +14.60%n/a | +11.90%n/a | +13.51%n/a |
| Max drawdown | PFM RJDI | -3.35%-4.09% | -11.22%n/a | -14.65%n/a | -17.94%n/a |
| Max drawdown duration | PFM RJDI | 28d14d | 46dn/a | 128dn/a | 561dn/a |
PFM | RJDI | |
Last sale 3/12/2026 at 1:30 PM | $51.72 | $27.05 |
| Previous close 03/11/2026 | $52.29 | $27.30 |
| Consolidated volume 03/11/2026 | ||
| Average volume 30 days | ||
| Average discount or premium 30 days | ||
| Average Bid/Ask spread 30 days |
Create an account to view replication metrics
PFM | RJDI | |
|---|---|---|
| Tracking error | ||
| Tracking difference | ||
| 1 year cumulative return difference | ||
| Best | ||
| Worst | ||
| Daily return difference | ||
| Average | ||
| Worst | ||
PFM | RJDI | |
|---|---|---|
| Last price | $51.72 | $27.05 |
| 1D performance | -1.09% | -0.92% |
| AuM | $744.02 M | $47.75 M |
| E/R | 0.52% | 0.55% |
PFM | RJDI | |
|---|---|---|
| Management strategy | Passive | Active |
| Provider | Invesco | Raymond James |
| Benchmark | NASDAQ US Broad Dividend Achievers Index | - |
| N° of holdings | 421 | 37 |
| Asset class | Equities | - |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | Join | Join |
| Inception date | September 15, 2005 | October 1, 2025 |
| ESG | No | No |
Countries
Sectors
Diversification
Total weight of top 15 holdings out of 15
Total weight of top 15 holdings out of 15
Top 15 holdings
How have the PFM and RJDI ETFs performed in 2026?
As of March 11, 2026, PFM is up 1.63% year-to-date (YTD), while RJDI has returned 7.96%. That puts RJDI better performer ahead so far this year.
Which ETF is attracting more investor money: PFM or RJDI?
Year-to-date, the PFM ETF saw -$22M in flows, compared to +$12M for RJDI.
Which ETF is bigger: PFM or RJDI?
As of March 11, 2026, PFM holds $744.02 M in assets under management (AUM), while RJDI manages $47.75 M.
What sectors do the PFM and RJDI ETFs invest in?
PFM leans toward sectors like Information Technology, Health Care and Financials. Meanwhile, RJDI focuses on Information Technology, Financials and Health Care.
What are the top holdings of the PFM ETF and RJDI ETF?
PFM top holdings include LILLY, MICROSOFT-T and WALMART INC. RJDI holds in its top three: BROADCOM LIMITED, WALMART INC and ANALOG DEVICES.
Which ETF is more diversified: PFM or RJDI?
PFM holds 426 securities with 37.61% of its assets in the top 15. RJDI has 37 securities and a top 15 weight of 59.02%.
Raymond James Debuts Three Income-Focused ETFs
Dividend Growth, High Yield, & Dividend Quality ETFs: What's the Difference?
Active Trader Report: Use of Leveraged & Inverse ETFs Way Up
Direxion partnered with Compound Insights and Vanda to explore what’s driving the evolution of active trading — and how active traders are using leveraged and inverse funds across equities, single stocks, commodities, and volatility.
