AGRW vs. ILCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AGRW (Allspring LT Large Growth ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. AGRW is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Over the past year, AGRW returned 23.16% vs 29.51% for ILCG. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AGRW charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

AGRW vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AGRW achieves a 8.77% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 14.48% return.

AGRW

• 1D: -1.69%
• 1M: 7.09%
• YTD: 8.77%
• 6M: 8.21%
• 1Y: 23.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: 7.68%
• YTD: 14.48%
• 6M: 14.61%
• 1Y: 29.51%
• 3Y*: 26.55%
• 5Y*: 14.95%
• 10Y*: 18.15%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AGRW vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AGRW Allspring LT Large Growth ETF	8.77%	23.16%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	14.48%	25.41%

Correlation

The correlation between AGRW and ILCG is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 28, 2025	0.95

The correlation between AGRW and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AGRW vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

AGRW

AGRW Risk / Return Rank: 37
AGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
AGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
AGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 41
AGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
AGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 33

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 46
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 50
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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.

AGRW vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.

	AGRW	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	1.82	-0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	2.45	-0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.32	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.41	1.89	-0.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.73	6.68	-1.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AGRW vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGRW Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGRW and ILCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AGRW	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	1.82	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.85	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.28	0.59	+0.69

Drawdowns

AGRW vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGRW drawdown since its inception was -16.46%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGRW and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	AGRW	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.46%	-52.98%	+36.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.46%	-15.65%	-0.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.38%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.36%	-1.02%	-1.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.28%	-8.22%	+4.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.91%	4.43%	+0.48%

Volatility

AGRW vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) have volatilities of 4.34% and 4.40%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AGRW	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.34%	4.40%	-0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.44%	12.81%	-0.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.91%	16.31%	-0.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.99%	22.00%	-0.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.99%	21.53%	+0.46%

AGRW vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGRW has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

AGRW vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

AGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%, less than ILCG's 0.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AGRW Allspring LT Large Growth ETF	0.12%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.40%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AGRW and ILCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, AGRW and ILCG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, AGRW or ILCG?

ILCG has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to AGRW (4.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGRW dropped -16.46% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, AGRW or ILCG?

On 1-year performance, ILCG leads with 29.51% vs 23.16% for AGRW. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AGRW or ILCG?

Over the 1-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 29.51% return vs 23.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AGRW or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for AGRW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AGRW or ILCG?

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.12% for AGRW.

What is the main difference between AGRW and ILCG?

They also come from different issuers: Allspring and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for AGRW and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.46), 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.