AOM vs. IRTR
AOM (iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF) and IRTR (iShares LifePath Retirement ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AOM is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the S&P Target Risk Moderate, while IRTR is a Target Retirement Date fund actively managed by iShares. AOM is passively managed, while IRTR is actively managed. Over the past year, AOM returned 12.96% vs 12.47% for IRTR. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AOM charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for IRTR.
Performance
AOM vs. IRTR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with AOM having a 4.39% return and IRTR slightly higher at 4.55%.
AOM
- 1D
- -0.76%
- 1M
- 0.20%
- YTD
- 4.39%
- 6M
- 4.21%
- 1Y
- 12.96%
- 3Y*
- 10.58%
- 5Y*
- 4.63%
- 10Y*
- 6.31%
IRTR
- 1D
- -0.60%
- 1M
- 0.24%
- YTD
- 4.55%
- 6M
- 4.41%
- 1Y
- 12.47%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AOM vs. IRTR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF | 4.39% | 13.28% | 7.95% | 9.61% |
IRTR iShares LifePath Retirement ETF | 4.55% | 12.70% | 7.59% | 11.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between AOM and IRTR 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 Oct 19, 2023 | 0.94 |
The correlation between AOM and IRTR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
AOM vs. IRTR — Risk / Return Rank
AOM
IRTR
AOM vs. IRTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) and iShares LifePath Retirement ETF (IRTR). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| AOM | IRTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.10 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.13 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | 1.38 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.55 | 2.60 | -0.05 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.96 | 11.24 | -0.28 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
AOM vs. IRTR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AOM drawdown since its inception was -19.96%, which is greater than IRTR's maximum drawdown of -6.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AOM and IRTR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AOM | IRTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.96% | -6.29% | -13.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.11% | -4.82% | -0.29% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.85% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.96% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -19.96% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.04% | -0.97% | -0.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.69% | -0.78% | -1.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.19% | 1.11% | +0.08% |
Volatility
AOM vs. IRTR - Volatility Comparison
iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) has a higher volatility of 2.78% compared to iShares LifePath Retirement ETF (IRTR) at 2.52%. This indicates that AOM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IRTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AOM | IRTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.78% | 2.52% | +0.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.70% | 5.29% | +0.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.94% | 6.34% | +0.60% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.21% | 7.11% | +1.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.94% | 7.11% | +0.83% |
AOM vs. IRTR - Expense Ratio Comparison
AOM has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than IRTR's 0.08% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
AOM vs. IRTR - Dividend Comparison
AOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.00%, which matches IRTR's 3.01% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF | 3.00% | 2.98% | 3.10% | 2.79% | 2.27% | 1.56% | 2.02% | 2.66% | 2.53% | 3.31% | 2.14% | 1.98% |
IRTR iShares LifePath Retirement ETF | 3.01% | 3.03% | 3.03% | 0.85% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.94, AOM and IRTR 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.
AOM has higher volatility (2.78%) compared to IRTR (2.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AOM dropped -19.96% vs IRTR's -6.29%.
On 1-year performance, AOM leads with 12.96% vs 12.47% for IRTR. On fees, IRTR is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, IRTR has been the lower-risk option at 2.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, AOM has performed better with a 12.96% return vs 12.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IRTR is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for AOM.
AOM and IRTR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 3.00%.
AOM is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while IRTR is Target Retirement Date. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for AOM and 0.08% for IRTR.
IRTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 1.88), 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.
Find the right allocation for AOM and IRTR
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