FLCG vs. ILCG

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

FLCG (Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FLCG is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Over the past year, FLCG returned 10.92% vs 20.09% for ILCG. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FLCG charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

FLCG vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF (FLCG) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCG achieves a -1.27% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 9.10% return.

FLCG

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: -4.78%
• YTD: -1.27%
• 6M: -2.67%
• 1Y: 10.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -1.90%
• YTD: 9.10%
• 6M: 7.52%
• 1Y: 20.09%
• 3Y*: 23.75%
• 5Y*: 12.68%
• 10Y*: 18.09%

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

FLCG vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLCG Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF	-1.27%	16.87%	13.11%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	9.10%	16.71%	15.22%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCG and ILCG is 0.95, 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	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2024	0.96

The correlation between FLCG and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCG vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCG	ILCG
Technology	55.6%	53.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.8%	10.1%
Communication Services	11.1%	13.5%
Healthcare	7.9%	5.2%
Industrials	5.8%	7.7%
Financial Services	3.2%	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	1.4%
Energy	0.2%	0.4%
Basic Materials	0.1%	1.0%
Real Estate	-	1.3%
Utilities	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

FLCG vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCG

FLCG Risk / Return Rank: 20
FLCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
FLCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
FLCG Omega Ratio Rank: 20
FLCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FLCG Martin Ratio Rank: 21

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 32
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

FLCG vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF (FLCG) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.

	FLCG	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.69	1.15	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.03	1.60	-0.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.21	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.73	1.29	-0.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.37	4.42	-2.05

FLCG vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCG Sharpe Ratio is 0.69, which is lower than the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCG and ILCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FLCG vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCG drawdown since its inception was -22.95%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCG and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCG	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.95%	-52.98%	+30.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.07%	-15.65%	+0.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.38%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.56%	-5.68%	-1.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.69%	-8.21%	+4.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.62%	4.56%	+0.06%

Volatility

FLCG vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF (FLCG) is 5.71%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 7.82%. This indicates that FLCG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCG	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.71%	7.82%	-2.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.35%	14.46%	-2.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.02%	17.65%	-1.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.13%	22.22%	-1.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.13%	21.62%	-0.49%

FLCG vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCG has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCG vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

FLCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.05%, less than ILCG's 0.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLCG Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF	0.05%	0.05%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.42%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCG and ILCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, FLCG and ILCG 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.

Which is riskier, FLCG or ILCG?

ILCG has higher volatility (7.82%) compared to FLCG (5.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCG dropped -22.95% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, FLCG or ILCG?

On 1-year performance, ILCG leads with 20.09% vs 10.92% for FLCG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, FLCG has been the lower-risk option at 5.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCG or ILCG?

Over the 1-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 20.09% return vs 10.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCG or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for FLCG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLCG or ILCG?

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.05% for FLCG.

What is the main difference between FLCG and ILCG?

They also come from different issuers: Federated Hermes and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FLCG and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.15 vs 0.69), 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.