FITZ vs. IWL
FITZ (Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF) and IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FITZ is actively managed, while IWL is passively managed. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FITZ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for IWL.
Performance
FITZ vs. IWL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
FITZ
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- 1.36%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWL
- 1D
- -1.13%
- 1M
- 0.35%
- 6M
- 7.28%
- YTD
- 8.17%
- 1Y
- 19.19%
- 3Y*
- 20.24%
- 5Y*
- 13.44%
- 10Y*
- 15.83%
FITZ vs. IWL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | -1.88% |
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF | -1.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between FITZ and IWL is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2026 | 0.80 |
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
FITZ vs. IWL — Risk / Return Rank
FITZ
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IWL
FITZ vs. IWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF (FITZ) and iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| FITZ | IWL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.27 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.96 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 8.10 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FITZ vs. IWL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FITZ drawdown since its inception was -7.37%, smaller than the maximum IWL drawdown of -32.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FITZ and IWL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FITZ | IWL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -7.37% | -32.71% | +25.34% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -9.83% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -19.15% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -25.65% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.71% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.27% | -2.50% | -0.77% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.90% | -3.87% | -0.03% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.37% | — |
Volatility
FITZ vs. IWL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FITZ | IWL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.76% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 10.36% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.57% | 13.02% | +2.55% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.57% | 17.30% | -1.73% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.57% | 18.10% | -2.53% |
FITZ vs. IWL - Expense Ratio Comparison
FITZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than IWL's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
FITZ vs. IWL - Dividend Comparison
FITZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF | 0.85% | 0.90% | 1.04% | 1.30% | 1.54% | 1.12% | 1.30% | 1.96% | 1.93% | 1.69% | 1.96% | 2.14% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FITZ and IWL have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IWL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IWL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for FITZ.
IWL has the higher dividend yield at 0.85%, compared with 0.00% for FITZ.
They also come from different issuers: Nicholas and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for FITZ and 0.15% for IWL.
Find the right allocation for FITZ and IWL
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