PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ACSI vs. IWFG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ACSI vs. IWFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI) and NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACSI achieves a 9.66% return, which is significantly higher than IWFG's 2.08% return.


ACSI

1D
-0.92%
1M
5.55%
YTD
9.66%
6M
9.77%
1Y
18.71%
3Y*
18.51%
5Y*
9.12%
10Y*

IWFG

1D
-1.30%
1M
4.41%
YTD
2.08%
6M
1.13%
1Y
11.87%
3Y*
23.02%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACSI vs. IWFG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
ACSI
American Customer Satisfaction ETF
9.66%10.70%22.51%21.06%-0.76%
IWFG
NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
2.08%14.33%37.56%38.40%3.75%

Correlation

The correlation between ACSI and IWFG is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.60

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.70

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2022

0.76

The correlation between ACSI and IWFG shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.76 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ACSI vs. IWFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ACSI
IWFG

Consumer Cyclical

24.2%
11.0%

Communication Services

15.4%
13.3%

Technology

12.5%
52.4%

Consumer Defensive

12.4%

-

Financial Services

9.6%
4.8%

Healthcare

8.5%
5.5%

Industrials

7.3%
7.5%

Utilities

3.9%
4.0%

Energy

3.4%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

ACSI
24.2%
IWFG
11.0%

Communication Services

ACSI
15.4%
IWFG
13.3%

Technology

ACSI
12.5%
IWFG
52.4%

Consumer Defensive

ACSI
12.4%
IWFG

-

Financial Services

ACSI
9.6%
IWFG
4.8%

Healthcare

ACSI
8.5%
IWFG
5.5%

Industrials

ACSI
7.3%
IWFG
7.5%

Utilities

ACSI
3.9%
IWFG
4.0%

Energy

ACSI
3.4%
IWFG

-

Basic Materials

ACSI

-

IWFG

-

Real Estate

ACSI

-

IWFG

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ACSI vs. IWFG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ACSI
ACSI Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
ACSI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACSI Sortino Ratio Rank: 4646
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACSI Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
ACSI Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACSI Martin Ratio Rank: 5454
Martin Ratio Rank

IWFG
IWFG Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
IWFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWFG Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
IWFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWFG Martin Ratio Rank: 1717
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ACSI vs. IWFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI) and NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.


ACSIIWFGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.90

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.13

+0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.42

0.59

+1.83

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.45

1.73

+7.73

ACSI vs. IWFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACSI Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is higher than the IWFG Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACSI and IWFG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ACSIIWFGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.63

0.72

+0.90

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.75

1.16

-0.41

Drawdowns

ACSI vs. IWFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACSI drawdown since its inception was -34.49%, which is greater than IWFG's maximum drawdown of -21.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACSI and IWFG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ACSIIWFGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.49%

-21.97%

-12.52%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.76%

-20.20%

+12.44%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.27%

-21.97%

+6.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.86%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.38%

-2.79%

+0.41%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.39%

-4.13%

-1.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.98%

6.89%

-4.91%

Volatility

ACSI vs. IWFG - Volatility Comparison

American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI) has a higher volatility of 4.16% compared to NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) at 3.85%. This indicates that ACSI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ACSIIWFGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.16%

3.85%

+0.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.88%

12.59%

-3.71%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.56%

16.50%

-4.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.66%

20.48%

-3.82%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.43%

20.48%

-3.05%

ACSI vs. IWFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACSI has a 0.66% expense ratio, which is higher than IWFG's 0.46% expense ratio.


Dividends

ACSI vs. IWFG - Dividend Comparison

ACSI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.83%, while IWFG has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
ACSI
American Customer Satisfaction ETF
0.83%0.91%0.69%1.01%0.81%0.31%0.82%1.64%1.59%1.20%0.18%
IWFG
NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
0.00%0.00%5.44%1.01%0.05%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


ACSI and IWFG have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ACSI has higher volatility (4.16%) compared to IWFG (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACSI dropped -34.49% vs IWFG's -21.97%.

On 3-year performance, IWFG leads with 23.02% vs 18.51% for ACSI. On fees, IWFG is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, IWFG has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, IWFG has performed better with a 23.02% return vs 18.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWFG is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for ACSI.

ACSI has the higher dividend yield at 0.83%, compared with 0.00% for IWFG.

They also come from different issuers: Exponential ETFs and New York Life. Their fees differ too: 0.66% for ACSI and 0.46% for IWFG.

ACSI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.63 vs 0.72), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACSI and IWFG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer