PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EUSA vs. IMCB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EUSA vs. IMCB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EUSA achieves a 10.04% return, which is significantly lower than IMCB's 15.52% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with EUSA having a 11.57% annualized return and IMCB not far behind at 11.36%.


EUSA

1D
0.81%
1M
3.88%
YTD
10.04%
6M
10.00%
1Y
19.17%
3Y*
16.37%
5Y*
7.90%
10Y*
11.57%

IMCB

1D
0.70%
1M
4.83%
YTD
15.52%
6M
15.21%
1Y
24.38%
3Y*
18.27%
5Y*
8.96%
10Y*
11.36%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EUSA vs. IMCB - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EUSA
iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF
10.04%10.24%14.64%17.72%-17.13%25.60%15.03%30.56%-8.58%19.02%
IMCB
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF
15.52%10.25%15.10%16.37%-16.09%22.81%13.35%31.49%-11.53%19.70%

Correlation

The correlation between EUSA and IMCB is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.97

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.98

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.97

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2010

0.86

The correlation between EUSA and IMCB shifts across timeframes, from 0.86 (all time) to 0.99 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EUSA vs. IMCB - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EUSA
IMCB

Technology

21.3%
21.3%

Industrials

14.7%
19.0%

Financial Services

14.4%
12.0%

Healthcare

10.1%
7.9%

Consumer Cyclical

9.7%
9.0%

Utilities

5.6%
6.2%

Real Estate

5.5%
4.3%

Consumer Defensive

5.2%
5.1%

Communication Services

4.8%
2.3%

Energy

4.6%
7.4%

Basic Materials

4.1%
5.3%

Technology

EUSA
21.3%
IMCB
21.3%

Industrials

EUSA
14.7%
IMCB
19.0%

Financial Services

EUSA
14.4%
IMCB
12.0%

Healthcare

EUSA
10.1%
IMCB
7.9%

Consumer Cyclical

EUSA
9.7%
IMCB
9.0%

Utilities

EUSA
5.6%
IMCB
6.2%

Real Estate

EUSA
5.5%
IMCB
4.3%

Consumer Defensive

EUSA
5.2%
IMCB
5.1%

Communication Services

EUSA
4.8%
IMCB
2.3%

Energy

EUSA
4.6%
IMCB
7.4%

Basic Materials

EUSA
4.1%
IMCB
5.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

EUSA vs. IMCB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EUSA
EUSA Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
EUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
EUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
EUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
EUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

IMCB
IMCB Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
IMCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMCB Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
IMCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMCB Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EUSA vs. IMCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB). 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.


EUSAIMCBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.34

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.46

3.04

-0.58

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.76

12.06

-2.31

EUSA vs. IMCB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EUSA Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is comparable to the IMCB Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EUSA and IMCB, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EUSAIMCBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.63

1.92

-0.29

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.47

0.51

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.63

0.58

+0.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.71

0.51

+0.20

Drawdowns

EUSA vs. IMCB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EUSA drawdown since its inception was -39.16%, smaller than the maximum IMCB drawdown of -58.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EUSA and IMCB.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EUSAIMCBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.16%

-58.80%

+19.64%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.82%

-8.05%

+0.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.20%

-19.80%

+1.60%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.24%

-25.15%

-0.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.16%

-40.99%

+1.83%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.59%

-7.73%

+3.14%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.97%

2.03%

-0.06%

Volatility

EUSA vs. IMCB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA) is 2.93%, while iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) has a volatility of 3.24%. This indicates that EUSA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IMCB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EUSAIMCBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.93%

3.24%

-0.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.75%

9.60%

-0.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.80%

12.74%

-0.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.95%

17.57%

-0.62%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.34%

19.64%

-1.30%

EUSA vs. IMCB - Expense Ratio Comparison

EUSA has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCB's 0.04% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

EUSA vs. IMCB - Dividend Comparison

EUSA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, more than IMCB's 1.21% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EUSA
iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF
1.51%1.63%1.47%1.53%1.73%1.23%1.45%1.49%2.01%1.50%1.59%2.21%
IMCB
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF
1.21%1.42%1.43%1.55%1.70%1.08%1.12%1.32%1.80%1.31%1.79%1.47%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.97, EUSA and IMCB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

IMCB has higher volatility (3.24%) compared to EUSA (2.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EUSA dropped -39.16% vs IMCB's -58.80%.

On 10-year performance, EUSA leads with 11.57% vs 11.36% for IMCB. On fees, IMCB is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, EUSA has been the lower-risk option at 2.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EUSA has performed better with a 11.57% return vs 11.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IMCB is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.09% for EUSA.

EUSA has the higher dividend yield at 1.51%, compared with 1.21% for IMCB.

EUSA tracks MSCI USA Equal Weighted Index, while IMCB tracks IMCB-US - Morningstar U.S. Mid Cap Index. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for EUSA and 0.04% for IMCB.

IMCB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.63), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EUSA and IMCB

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer