CZA vs. IWF
Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF).
CZA and IWF 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. IWF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000. Both CZA and IWF 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 IWF.
Performance
CZA vs. IWF - Performance Comparison
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 16.70% return, which is significantly lower than IWF's 28.34% return. Over the past 10 years, CZA has underperformed IWF with an annualized return of 9.65%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively higher 16.21% annualized return.
CZA
16.70%
-0.83%
8.94%
27.43%
9.04%
9.65%
IWF
28.34%
1.92%
13.33%
35.40%
18.94%
16.21%
Key characteristics
| CZA | IWF | |
|---|---|---|
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.29 | 2.13 |
| Sortino Ratio | 3.20 | 2.79 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.40 | 1.39 |
| Calmar Ratio | 3.15 | 2.70 |
| Martin Ratio | 12.31 | 10.64 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.25% | 3.36% |
| Daily Std Dev | 12.09% | 16.76% |
| Max Drawdown | -53.20% | -64.18% |
| Current Drawdown | -2.68% | -2.82% |
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. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than IWF's 0.19% expense ratio.
Correlation
The correlation between CZA and IWF is 0.68, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CZA vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). 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. IWF - Dividend Comparison
CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, more than IWF's 0.52% 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% |
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 0.52% | 0.67% | 0.91% | 0.50% | 0.66% | 0.99% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.43% | 1.37% | 1.33% | 1.29% |
Drawdowns
CZA vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and IWF. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CZA vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is 4.12%, while iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a volatility of 5.59%. This indicates that CZA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.