Skip to content

GUSE vs PCLC

Goldman Sachs Enhanced U.S. Equity ETF

GUSEANasdaq

Polen 5Perspectives Large Growth ETF

PCLCCNYSE Arca

Overlap

Expense ratio

GUSE −0.20pt a year

GUSE0.30%PCLC0.50%

Avg volume · 30D

GUSE 49.8×the volume

GUSE24.9KPCLC500

GUSE vs PCLC Performance

Jul 31, 2026 – Oct 30, 2026

+0.5%GUSE−2.3%PCLC

Jul 31, 2026 to Oct 30, 2026. GUSE +0.5%. PCLC −2.3%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.2.5%5%7.5%10%12.5%Jul 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
Expense ratio
GUSE 0.30%, better
PCLC 0.50%
Fund size
GUSE $421M
PCLC $2M
Holdings
GUSE 122
PCLC 40
Avg volume (30D)
GUSE 24.9K sh, better
PCLC 500 sh
NAV per share
GUSE $46.05
PCLC $24.09
52W range

ETF.net Grade

GUSE: Cost 97, Risk 94, Mission not scored, Tradability 46, Holdings 89, Durability 85. PCLC: Cost 62, Risk 33, Mission not scored, Tradability 32, Holdings 66, Durability 25.
Pillar letters and Scores for GUSE, PCLC, with each pillar’s weight
PillarGUSEPCLC
Cost30% weightA97HigherB62
Mission25% weightNot scoredNot scored
Risk15% weightA94HigherD33
Tradability15% weightC46HigherD32
Holdings10% weightA89HigherB66
Durability5% weightA85HigherD25

Rank among US Active Growth funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. GUSE and PCLC are both graded against the same 90 US Active Growth funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

US Active Growth⁠

Category · 90 funds
See all 90 ›

GUSE ranks 2nd and PCLC 64th of 90 funds in the US Active Growth Category.

  1. Rank 1AJUSAJPMorgan U.S. Research Enhanced Large Cap ETFScore 86
  2. Rank 2AGUSEGoldman Sachs Enhanced U.S. Equity ETFScore 84
  3. Rank 3ALRGCAB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETFScore 81
  4. Rank 64CHFGOHartford Large Cap Growth ETFScore 40
  5. Rank 64CPCLCPolen 5Perspectives Large Growth ETFScore 40
  6. Rank 64CSSMGVirtus Silvant Small/Mid Growth ETFScore 40

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

GUSEAGoldman Sachs Enhanced U.S. Equity ETF

PCLCCPolen 5Perspectives Large Growth ETF

In short

GUSE Goldman's fundamental stock pickers hunting long-term growth in US companies, for 0.30% a year. The strategy dates to 2008 and charges well under the typical active US growth fund.

PCLC Polen put its 5Perspectives framework, a 25-year-old blend of fundamental, thematic and technical analysis, into an ETF. Active large-cap growth hunting innovators at an earnings inflection, for 0.50% a year.

Stated mandate

GUSE The Fund seeks long-term growth of capital by investing in companies that the Investment Adviser believes are positioned for long-term growth.

PCLC The Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation. It normally invests at least 80% of net assets in equity securities of large-cap issuers exhibiting growth characteristics.

Why people hold it

  • GUSE Charges 0.30% a year, against a 0.54% median for its active US growth cohort. Cheap, for stock picking.
  • Actively run with no index to shadow. Managers hold companies they judge positioned for long-term growth, so the portfolio can look different from a large-cap benchmark.
  • Inception dates to 2008, so the strategy has run through multiple market cycles, not one long rally.
  • One of the stronger implementations in a crowded field of active US growth funds.
  • PCLC The whole pitch is the process: fundamental, thematic and technical evidence weighed across five lenses, with that combined weight of evidence setting buys, sells and position sizes.polencapital.com
  • At 0.50% a year it sits below the middle of its active large-growth peer group, though enhanced-index rivals like JUSA (0.12%) and FELG (0.18%) undercut it by a wide margin.
  • The mandate is concrete: at least 80% of net assets in large-cap growth equities, with the team leaning on secular themes like AI, electrification, genomics and aerospace.polencapital.cominvestmentnews.com
  • Drew Cupps has run this framework for decades, at his own firm and two others before the team joined Polen in 2025, and he manages the fund himself.polencapital.compolencapital.com 2

Worth knowing

  • GUSE Trades thinly next to the category's heavyweights. Spreads can be wider, which bites most on large or hurried orders.
  • Two peers in the same top tier undercut it on fee: JUSA at 0.12% and FELG at 0.18%. Price is not where this one stands out.
  • Distributions land once or twice a year, not monthly. Growth of capital is the stated goal, not an income stream.
  • PCLC Small and thinly traded so far, which can mean wider bid-ask spreads and less predictable fills than the household-name large-cap ETFs in this aisle.
  • Launched in 2026. The framework's long record was built in separate accounts at prior firms, not in this ticker, so there is little fund-level history to lean on.polencapital.com
  • Income is incidental here: distributions are annual and come from net investment income, and the fund discloses that part of a payout can be return of capital.

Full GUSE profile⁠

Full PCLC profile⁠

GUSE vs PCLC Holdings

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

GUSE vs PCLC Cost

Overpaying PCLC vs GUSE

$3,830

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • GUSE 0.30%

    $6,149

  • PCLC 0.50%

    $9,979

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • GUSE 0.30%
  • PCLC 0.50%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$2K$4K$6K$8K$10K051015202530PCLC $9,979GUSE $6,149

Year by year

YearGUSEPCLCOverpaying
10$545$900$355
20$2,113$3,460$1,347
30$6,149$9,979$3,830

Expense ratio

  • 0.30%GUSE, cheaper
  • 0.50%PCLC
  • Middle half of US Active Growth funds
  • Median 0.55%

GUSE 3rd cheapest of 90 funds

PCLC 33rd cheapest of 90 funds

GUSE vs PCLC Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Payout (12M)
GUSE No data
PCLC None
Last payment
GUSE $0.30
PCLC No data
Ex-dividend
GUSE Dec 23, 2025
PCLC No data
Paid on
GUSE Dec 30, 2025
PCLC No data
Frequency
GUSE Irregular
PCLC No data

Distribution history

Per share, 2025 to 2026, same scale for both

GUSEIrregular · 1 paymentAll GUSE payments⁠
One bar per payment. 1 payment from 2025 to 2026 YTD. Dec 23, 2025 $0.30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$0.252026YTD
PCLCAll PCLC payments⁠

No distribution history available.

GUSE vs PCLC Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
GUSE 0.93PCLC 2.48

Popular comparisons

  • GUSEAvsJUSAA

    Goldman Sachs Enhanced U.S. Equity ETF · JPMorgan U.S. Research Enhanced Large Cap ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.30% · 0.18%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • PCLCCvsJUSAA

    Polen 5Perspectives Large Growth ETF · JPMorgan U.S. Research Enhanced Large Cap ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.18%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • GUSEAvsLRGCA

    Goldman Sachs Enhanced U.S. Equity ETF · AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.30% · 0.39%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • PCLCCvsLRGCA

    Polen 5Perspectives Large Growth ETF · AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.39%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • GUSEAvsFELGA

    Goldman Sachs Enhanced U.S. Equity ETF · Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.30% · 0.18%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • PCLCCvsFELGA

    Polen 5Perspectives Large Growth ETF · Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.50% · 0.18%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.