BINC vs. IWY

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

BINC (iShares Flexible Income Active ETF) and IWY (iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BINC is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by iShares, while IWY is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Top 200 Growth Index. BINC is actively managed, while IWY is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BINC returned 7.04%/yr vs 23.50%/yr for IWY. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BINC charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for IWY.

Performance

BINC vs. IWY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) and iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF (IWY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BINC achieves a 1.29% return, which is significantly lower than IWY's 5.40% return.

BINC

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.92%
• YTD: 1.29%
• 6M: 1.78%
• 1Y: 5.90%
• 3Y*: 7.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWY

• 1D: 2.34%
• 1M: -0.22%
• YTD: 5.40%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 24.23%
• 3Y*: 23.50%
• 5Y*: 15.67%
• 10Y*: 19.59%

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

BINC vs. IWY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	1.29%	7.57%	5.76%	7.12%
IWY iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF	5.40%	18.19%	34.89%	20.44%

Correlation

The correlation between BINC and IWY is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2023	0.35

Return for Risk

BINC vs. IWY — Risk / Return Rank

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

BINC

BINC Risk / Return Rank: 74
BINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
BINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
BINC Omega Ratio Rank: 90
BINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
BINC Martin Ratio Rank: 54

IWY

IWY Risk / Return Rank: 41
IWY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
IWY Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
IWY Omega Ratio Rank: 45
IWY Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
IWY Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

BINC vs. IWY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) and iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF (IWY). 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.

	BINC	IWY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.58	1.51	+1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.77	2.07	+1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.27	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.20	1.46	+0.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.60	4.70	+3.90

BINC vs. IWY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BINC Sharpe Ratio is 2.58, which is higher than the IWY Sharpe Ratio of 1.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BINC and IWY, 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

BINC vs. IWY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BINC drawdown since its inception was -2.69%, smaller than the maximum IWY drawdown of -32.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BINC and IWY.

Drawdown Indicators

	BINC	IWY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.69%	-32.68%	+29.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.69%	-16.63%	+13.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.69%	-23.22%	+20.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-32.68%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.10%	-3.47%	+3.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.36%	-4.75%	+4.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.69%	5.17%	-4.48%

Volatility

BINC vs. IWY - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) is 0.75%, while iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF (IWY) has a volatility of 5.68%. This indicates that BINC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BINC	IWY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.75%	5.68%	-4.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.87%	12.59%	-10.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.30%	16.14%	-13.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.99%	21.57%	-18.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.99%	21.03%	-18.04%

BINC vs. IWY - Expense Ratio Comparison

BINC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than IWY's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

BINC vs. IWY - Dividend Comparison

BINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.84%, more than IWY's 0.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	5.84%	5.86%	6.14%	3.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWY iShares Russell Top 200 Growth ETF	0.43%	0.36%	0.42%	0.68%	0.88%	0.50%	0.71%	1.06%	1.32%	1.26%	1.51%	1.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BINC and IWY in my portfolio?

BINC and IWY have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BINC or IWY?

IWY has higher volatility (5.68%) compared to BINC (0.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BINC dropped -2.69% vs IWY's -32.68%.

Which ETF is better, BINC or IWY?

On 3-year performance, IWY leads with 23.50% vs 7.04% for BINC. On fees, IWY is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, BINC has been the lower-risk option at 0.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BINC or IWY?

Over the 3-year period, IWY has performed better with a 23.50% return vs 7.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BINC or IWY?

IWY is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for BINC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BINC or IWY?

BINC has the higher dividend yield at 5.84%, compared with 0.43% for IWY.

What is the main difference between BINC and IWY?

BINC is categorized as Multisector Bonds, while IWY is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for BINC and 0.20% for IWY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.58 vs 1.51), 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.