BCHP vs. ILCG

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

BCHP (Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. BCHP is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Over the past year, BCHP returned -0.43% vs 20.09% for ILCG. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BCHP charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

BCHP vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF (BCHP) 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, BCHP achieves a -4.78% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 9.10% return.

BCHP

• 1D: 0.14%
• 1M: -4.55%
• YTD: -4.78%
• 6M: -5.76%
• 1Y: -0.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -1.90%
• YTD: 9.10%
• 6M: 7.52%
• 1Y: 20.09%
• 3Y*: 23.75%
• 5Y*: 12.68%
• 10Y*: 18.09%

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

BCHP vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BCHP Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF	-4.78%	10.20%	20.55%	13.14%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	9.10%	16.71%	32.82%	8.81%

Correlation

The correlation between BCHP and ILCG is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2023	0.85

The correlation between BCHP and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

BCHP vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BCHP	ILCG
Technology	33.7%	53.1%
Financial Services	24.9%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	15.1%	10.1%
Communication Services	13.0%	13.5%
Industrials	9.7%	7.7%
Healthcare	3.6%	5.2%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.4%
Energy	-	0.4%
Utilities	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

BCHP vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCHP

BCHP Risk / Return Rank: 9
BCHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
BCHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
BCHP Omega Ratio Rank: 8
BCHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
BCHP Martin Ratio Rank: 9

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 32
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

BCHP vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF (BCHP) 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.

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.

	BCHP	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.03	1.15	-1.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.08	1.60	-1.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.21	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.02	1.29	-1.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.07	4.42	-4.49

BCHP vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCHP Sharpe Ratio is -0.03, which is lower than the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCHP 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.

Drawdowns

BCHP vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCHP drawdown since its inception was -18.56%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCHP and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCHP	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.56%	-52.98%	+34.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.12%	-15.65%	-2.47%
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	-7.49%	-5.68%	-1.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.02%	-8.21%	+5.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.78%	4.56%	+1.22%

Volatility

BCHP vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF (BCHP) is 6.11%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 7.82%. This indicates that BCHP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCHP	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.11%	7.82%	-1.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.74%	14.46%	-0.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.56%	17.65%	-1.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.99%	22.22%	-5.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.99%	21.62%	-4.63%

BCHP vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCHP has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCHP vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

BCHP has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BCHP Principal Focused Blue Chip ETF	0.00%	0.00%	1.02%	0.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.42%	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 BCHP and ILCG in my portfolio?

BCHP and ILCG have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BCHP or ILCG?

ILCG has higher volatility (7.82%) compared to BCHP (6.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCHP dropped -18.56% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, BCHP or ILCG?

On 1-year performance, ILCG leads with 20.09% vs -0.43% for BCHP. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, BCHP has been the lower-risk option at 6.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BCHP or ILCG?

Over the 1-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 20.09% return vs -0.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCHP or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for BCHP.

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

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.00% for BCHP.

What is the main difference between BCHP and ILCG?

They also come from different issuers: Principal and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for BCHP and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.15 vs -0.03), 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.