BGIG vs. IWX

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) and IWX (iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. BGIG is actively managed, while IWX is passively managed. Over the past year, BGIG returned 22.35% vs 36.20% for IWX. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BGIG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for IWX.

Performance

BGIG vs. IWX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF (IWX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGIG achieves a 14.46% return, which is significantly lower than IWX's 22.04% return.

BGIG

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 2.06%
• 6M: 10.55%
• YTD: 14.46%
• 1Y: 22.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.63%

IWX

• 1D: 0.94%
• 1M: 3.56%
• 6M: 15.64%
• YTD: 22.04%
• 1Y: 36.20%
• 3Y*: 19.92%
• 5Y*: 12.91%
• 10Y*: 12.05%
• ALL TIME*: 11.75%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	$3.32M	$3.63M	$4.29M
IWX iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF	$52.73M	$47.86M	$34.45M

BGIG vs. IWX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	14.46%	12.49%	16.84%	3.57%
IWX iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF	22.04%	18.23%	14.89%	3.48%

Correlation

The correlation between BGIG and IWX is 0.75, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023	0.83

The correlation between BGIG and IWX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

BGIG vs. IWX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BGIG	IWX
Technology	24.2%	22.6%
Healthcare	16.8%	13.6%
Financial Services	14.5%	20.0%
Industrials	10.7%	8.3%
Energy	10.0%	5.1%
Utilities	7.3%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.1%	8.2%
Consumer Cyclical	4.9%	11.6%
Real Estate	3.7%	1.8%
Communication Services	1.2%	3.5%
Basic Materials	0.6%	2.8%

Return for Risk

BGIG vs. IWX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 91
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 92
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 90

IWX

IWX Risk / Return Rank: 96
IWX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
IWX Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
IWX Omega Ratio Rank: 96
IWX Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
IWX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BGIG vs. IWX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) and iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF (IWX). 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.

	BGIG	IWX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	3.40	-0.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.61	4.70	-1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.61	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.87	5.52	-1.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.13	24.26	-9.13

BGIG vs. IWX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGIG Sharpe Ratio is 2.53, which is comparable to the IWX Sharpe Ratio of 3.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGIG and IWX, 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

BGIG vs. IWX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGIG drawdown since its inception was -13.24%, smaller than the maximum IWX drawdown of -35.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGIG and IWX.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGIG	IWX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.24%	-35.76%	+22.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.81%	-6.59%	+0.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.37%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.13%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.69%	-3.79%	+2.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.48%	1.50%	-0.02%

Volatility

BGIG vs. IWX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) is 2.00%, while iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF (IWX) has a volatility of 2.94%. This indicates that BGIG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGIG	IWX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.00%	2.94%	-0.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.74%	8.50%	-1.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.91%	10.71%	-1.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.74%	13.89%	-2.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.74%	16.49%	-4.75%

BGIG vs. IWX - Expense Ratio Comparison

BGIG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than IWX's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

BGIG vs. IWX - Dividend Comparison

BGIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%, more than IWX's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.68%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWX iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF	1.38%	1.59%	1.97%	2.13%	2.07%	1.79%	2.12%	2.60%	2.66%	2.12%	2.22%	2.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGIG and IWX in my portfolio?

BGIG and IWX have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BGIG or IWX?

IWX has higher volatility (2.94%) compared to BGIG (2.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGIG dropped -13.24% vs IWX's -35.76%.

Which ETF is better, BGIG or IWX?

On 1-year performance, IWX leads with 36.20% vs 22.35% for BGIG. On fees, IWX is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BGIG or IWX?

Over the 1-year period, IWX has performed better with a 36.20% return vs 22.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BGIG or IWX?

IWX is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BGIG or IWX?

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.68%, compared with 1.38% for IWX.

What is the main difference between BGIG and IWX?

They also come from different issuers: Bahl & Gaynor and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for BGIG and 0.20% for IWX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.40 vs 2.53), 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.