CZA vs. IJH
Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH).
CZA and IJH are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CZA is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index. It was launched on Apr 2, 2007. IJH is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the S&P MidCap 400 Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. Both CZA and IJH are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: CZA or IJH.
Performance
CZA vs. IJH - Performance Comparison
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CZA having a 16.70% return and IJH slightly higher at 16.85%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CZA having a 9.65% annualized return and IJH not far ahead at 10.06%.
CZA
16.70%
-0.83%
8.94%
27.43%
9.04%
9.65%
IJH
16.85%
0.56%
7.10%
29.49%
11.61%
10.06%
Key characteristics
| CZA | IJH | |
|---|---|---|
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.29 | 1.77 |
| Sortino Ratio | 3.20 | 2.51 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.40 | 1.31 |
| Calmar Ratio | 3.15 | 2.62 |
| Martin Ratio | 12.31 | 10.27 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.25% | 2.75% |
| Daily Std Dev | 12.09% | 15.97% |
| Max Drawdown | -53.20% | -55.07% |
| Current Drawdown | -2.68% | -3.52% |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CZA vs. IJH - Expense Ratio Comparison
CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than IJH's 0.06% expense ratio.
Correlation
The correlation between CZA and IJH is 0.81, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CZA vs. IJH - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH). 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.
Dividends
CZA vs. IJH - Dividend Comparison
CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, less than IJH's 1.25% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF | 1.17% | 1.36% | 1.71% | 0.89% | 1.42% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.10% | 1.87% | 1.37% | 0.74% | 1.01% |
IJH iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF | 1.25% | 1.46% | 1.68% | 1.18% | 1.28% | 1.63% | 1.72% | 1.19% | 1.60% | 1.56% | 1.34% | 1.29% |
Drawdowns
CZA vs. IJH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, roughly equal to the maximum IJH drawdown of -55.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and IJH. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CZA vs. IJH - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is 4.12%, while iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH) has a volatility of 5.45%. This indicates that CZA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.