ARWG vs. ILCB
ARWG (Archer Growth ETF) and ILCB (iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ARWG is actively managed, while ILCB is passively managed. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ARWG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for ILCB.
Performance
ARWG vs. ILCB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ARWG achieves a 7.78% return, which is significantly lower than ILCB's 11.43% return.
ARWG
- 1D
- -0.68%
- 1M
- 3.70%
- 6M
- 6.36%
- YTD
- 7.78%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ILCB
- 1D
- 0.44%
- 1M
- 2.10%
- 6M
- 9.46%
- YTD
- 11.43%
- 1Y
- 22.34%
- 3Y*
- 21.22%
- 5Y*
- 12.68%
- 10Y*
- 14.67%
ARWG vs. ILCB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ARWG Archer Growth ETF | 7.78% | -0.95% |
ILCB iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF | 11.43% | -0.84% |
Correlation
The correlation between ARWG and ILCB is 0.71, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 30, 2025 | 0.71 |
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
ARWG vs. ILCB — Risk / Return Rank
ARWG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ILCB
ARWG vs. ILCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Archer Growth ETF (ARWG) and iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF (ILCB). 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.
| ARWG | ILCB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.31 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.42 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 10.47 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ARWG vs. ILCB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ARWG drawdown since its inception was -12.79%, smaller than the maximum ILCB drawdown of -51.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ARWG and ILCB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ARWG | ILCB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.79% | -51.53% | +38.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -9.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -19.05% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -25.47% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.30% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.72% | -0.40% | -1.32% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.24% | -6.22% | +2.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.10% | — |
Volatility
ARWG vs. ILCB - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ARWG | ILCB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.32% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 10.06% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.60% | 12.65% | +10.95% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.60% | 17.23% | +6.37% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.60% | 18.16% | +5.44% |
ARWG vs. ILCB - Expense Ratio Comparison
ARWG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCB's 0.03% expense ratio.
Dividends
ARWG vs. ILCB - Dividend Comparison
ARWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than ILCB's 0.97% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ARWG Archer Growth ETF | 0.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ILCB iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF | 0.97% | 1.11% | 1.19% | 1.43% | 1.65% | 1.16% | 1.26% | 2.25% | 2.17% | 1.81% | 1.97% | 2.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ARWG and ILCB have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ILCB is cheaper at 0.03% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ILCB is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ARWG.
ILCB has the higher dividend yield at 0.97%, compared with 0.13% for ARWG.
They also come from different issuers: Archer Funds and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for ARWG and 0.03% for ILCB.
Find the right allocation for ARWG and ILCB
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