PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FAD vs. IWR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FAD vs. IWR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) and iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FAD achieves a 17.25% return, which is significantly higher than IWR's 12.43% return. Over the past 10 years, FAD has outperformed IWR with an annualized return of 14.53%, while IWR has yielded a comparatively lower 11.55% annualized return.


FAD

1D
-0.15%
1M
6.70%
YTD
17.25%
6M
17.16%
1Y
34.52%
3Y*
24.16%
5Y*
11.25%
10Y*
14.53%

IWR

1D
-0.26%
1M
3.79%
YTD
12.43%
6M
12.21%
1Y
21.66%
3Y*
17.25%
5Y*
8.00%
10Y*
11.55%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FAD vs. IWR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FAD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund
17.25%17.23%23.85%19.07%-24.06%21.17%34.92%26.66%-6.45%25.75%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF
12.43%10.37%15.21%17.05%-17.48%22.44%16.93%30.23%-9.10%18.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FAD and IWR is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.87

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

0.92

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

0.93

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

0.91

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2007

0.85

The correlation between FAD and IWR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

FAD vs. IWR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FAD
IWR

Industrials

26.1%
18.4%

Technology

24.1%
17.2%

Healthcare

15.4%
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

10.8%
11.2%

Financial Services

8.0%
12.5%

Real Estate

4.1%
7.0%

Communication Services

3.1%
3.4%

Basic Materials

3.0%
4.3%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
4.1%

Energy

1.6%
7.2%

Utilities

1.6%
6.1%

Industrials

FAD
26.1%
IWR
18.4%

Technology

FAD
24.1%
IWR
17.2%

Healthcare

FAD
15.4%
IWR
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

FAD
10.8%
IWR
11.2%

Financial Services

FAD
8.0%
IWR
12.5%

Real Estate

FAD
4.1%
IWR
7.0%

Communication Services

FAD
3.1%
IWR
3.4%

Basic Materials

FAD
3.0%
IWR
4.3%

Consumer Defensive

FAD
2.4%
IWR
4.1%

Energy

FAD
1.6%
IWR
7.2%

Utilities

FAD
1.6%
IWR
6.1%

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

FAD vs. IWR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FAD
FAD Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
FAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
FAD Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
FAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
FAD Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank

IWR
IWR Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
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.

FAD vs. IWR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) and iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR). 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.


FADIWRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.25

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.28

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.25

2.66

+0.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.54

10.28

+2.27

FAD vs. IWR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FAD Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is comparable to the IWR Sharpe Ratio of 1.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FAD and IWR, 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


FADIWRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.88

1.63

+0.25

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

0.44

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.69

0.60

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.50

0.49

+0.01

Drawdowns

FAD vs. IWR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FAD drawdown since its inception was -54.33%, smaller than the maximum IWR drawdown of -58.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FAD and IWR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FADIWRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-54.33%

-58.78%

+4.45%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.66%

-8.17%

-2.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.55%

-21.09%

-2.46%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.99%

-26.18%

-5.81%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.25%

-40.59%

+3.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.15%

-0.26%

+0.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.64%

-7.80%

-1.84%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.76%

2.11%

+0.65%

Volatility

FAD vs. IWR - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) has a higher volatility of 6.01% compared to iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) at 3.26%. This indicates that FAD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FADIWRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.01%

3.26%

+2.75%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.14%

9.84%

+4.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.50%

13.39%

+5.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.53%

18.23%

+2.30%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.18%

19.36%

+1.82%

FAD vs. IWR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FAD has a 0.63% expense ratio, which is higher than IWR's 0.19% expense ratio.


Dividends

FAD vs. IWR - Dividend Comparison

FAD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than IWR's 1.15% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FAD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund
0.09%0.09%0.59%0.51%0.60%0.09%0.32%0.48%0.20%0.22%0.64%0.41%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF
1.15%1.29%1.27%1.43%1.59%1.04%1.28%1.43%1.98%1.52%1.72%1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions


FAD and IWR have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FAD has higher volatility (6.01%) compared to IWR (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FAD dropped -54.33% vs IWR's -58.78%.

On 10-year performance, FAD leads with 14.53% vs 11.55% for IWR. On fees, IWR is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWR has been the lower-risk option at 3.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FAD has performed better with a 14.53% return vs 11.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWR is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for FAD.

IWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 0.09% for FAD.

FAD tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Multi Cap Growth Index, while IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.63% for FAD and 0.19% for IWR.

FAD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 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 FAD and IWR

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