CZA vs. IWF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CZA is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CZA returned 10.13%/yr vs 18.64%/yr for IWF. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWF.

Performance

CZA vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 6.23% return, which is significantly lower than IWF's 8.52% return. Over the past 10 years, CZA has underperformed IWF with an annualized return of 10.13%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively higher 18.64% annualized return.

CZA

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: 0.98%
• YTD: 6.23%
• 6M: 7.63%
• 1Y: 14.36%
• 3Y*: 12.64%
• 5Y*: 6.76%
• 10Y*: 10.13%

IWF

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 6.86%
• YTD: 8.52%
• 6M: 7.80%
• 1Y: 28.15%
• 3Y*: 25.35%
• 5Y*: 15.86%
• 10Y*: 18.64%

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

CZA vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	6.23%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	27.42%	0.35%	32.27%	-8.89%	21.90%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	8.52%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	27.43%	38.25%	35.86%	-1.67%	29.95%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and IWF is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2007	0.66

Over the past year, the correlation between CZA and IWF has dropped to 0.44 - well below their long-term average of 0.66, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CZA vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CZA	IWF
Financial Services	23.8%	4.9%
Industrials	16.0%	5.0%
Healthcare	12.6%	7.0%
Utilities	10.6%	1.1%
Real Estate	10.5%	0.4%
Technology	10.5%	53.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	12.7%
Basic Materials	4.2%	0.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	2.5%
Energy	0.8%	0.4%
Communication Services	-	12.3%

Return for Risk

CZA vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 32
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 36

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 45
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 51
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

CZA vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends 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.

	CZA	IWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	1.84	-0.71
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	2.50	-0.78
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.32	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.50	1.78	-0.28
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.74	5.96	-0.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CZA vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA and IWF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CZA	IWF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.13	1.84	-0.71
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42	0.75	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	0.89	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.40	+0.08

Drawdowns

CZA vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and IWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	IWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-64.25%	+11.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.21%	-16.27%	+7.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-23.36%	+4.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	-32.72%	+13.80%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.18%	-32.72%	-13.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.54%	-0.37%	-0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.89%	-22.09%	+15.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.41%	4.86%	-2.45%

Volatility

CZA vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) have volatilities of 3.35% and 3.26%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CZA	IWF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.35%	3.26%	+0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.32%	11.58%	-2.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.79%	15.39%	-2.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	21.39%	-5.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.28%	20.97%	-1.69%

CZA vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than IWF's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZA vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than IWF's 0.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.47%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.33%	0.36%	0.46%	0.67%	0.91%	0.49%	0.66%	0.99%	1.27%	1.10%	1.43%	1.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZA and IWF in my portfolio?

CZA and IWF have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CZA or IWF?

CZA has higher volatility (3.35%) compared to IWF (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs IWF's -64.25%.

Which ETF is better, CZA or IWF?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.64% vs 10.13% for CZA. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZA or IWF?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.64% return vs 10.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZA or IWF?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CZA or IWF?

CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

What is the main difference between CZA and IWF?

CZA is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while IWF is Large Cap Growth Equities. CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.19% for IWF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.13), 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.