GGUS vs. IWF

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

GGUS (Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF) and IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - GGUS tracks the Russell 1000 Growth 40 Act Daily Capped Index - Benchmark TR Gross while IWF tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GGUS returned 14.42% vs 14.17% for IWF. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. GGUS charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IWF.

Performance

GGUS vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF (GGUS) 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, GGUS achieves a 4.42% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's 2.94% return.

GGUS

• 1D: -2.00%
• 1M: 0.20%
• 6M: 3.43%
• YTD: 4.42%
• 1Y: 14.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWF

• 1D: -1.90%
• 1M: 0.07%
• 6M: 2.09%
• YTD: 2.94%
• 1Y: 14.17%
• 3Y*: 20.66%
• 5Y*: 12.46%
• 10Y*: 17.73%

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

GGUS vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GGUS Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF	4.42%	17.32%	30.88%	4.54%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	2.94%	18.33%	33.12%	4.48%

Correlation

The correlation between GGUS and IWF is 0.99 - 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	0.99
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2023	0.99

The correlation between GGUS and IWF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.99 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

GGUS vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GGUS	IWF
Technology	50.9%	53.9%
Communication Services	15.4%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	12.7%
Industrials	9.2%	5.4%
Healthcare	6.2%	6.9%
Financial Services	5.0%	5.0%
Utilities	1.4%	0.3%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	2.4%
Energy	0.5%	0.3%
Real Estate	0.5%	0.4%
Basic Materials	0.3%	0.3%

Return for Risk

GGUS vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GGUS

GGUS Risk / Return Rank: 28
GGUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
GGUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
GGUS Omega Ratio Rank: 28
GGUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
GGUS Martin Ratio Rank: 29

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 26
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 27
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

GGUS vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF (GGUS) 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.

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.

	GGUS	IWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	0.85	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.30	1.25	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.16	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.97	0.87	+0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.20	2.76	+0.45

GGUS vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGUS Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is comparable to the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 0.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGUS 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.

Drawdowns

GGUS vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGUS drawdown since its inception was -22.59%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGUS and IWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GGUS	IWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.59%	-64.25%	+41.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.91%	-16.27%	+1.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.36%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-32.72%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.17%	-5.49%	+1.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.22%	-22.01%	+18.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.51%	5.15%	-0.64%

Volatility

GGUS vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF (GGUS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) have volatilities of 6.57% and 6.52%, 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

	GGUS	IWF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.57%	6.52%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.06%	13.41%	-0.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.28%	16.74%	-0.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.13%	21.62%	-2.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.13%	21.04%	-1.91%

GGUS vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GGUS has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than IWF's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GGUS vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

GGUS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, more than IWF's 0.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GGUS Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF	0.42%	0.43%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.35%	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 GGUS and IWF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, GGUS and IWF 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, GGUS or IWF?

GGUS has higher volatility (6.57%) compared to IWF (6.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGUS dropped -22.59% vs IWF's -64.25%.

Which ETF is better, GGUS or IWF?

On 1-year performance, GGUS leads with 14.42% vs 14.17% for IWF. On fees, GGUS is cheaper at 0.12% 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, GGUS or IWF?

Over the 1-year period, GGUS has performed better with a 14.42% return vs 14.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GGUS or IWF?

GGUS is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IWF.

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

GGUS has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.

What is the main difference between GGUS and IWF?

GGUS tracks Russell 1000 Growth 40 Act Daily Capped Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GGUS and 0.18% for IWF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GGUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.89 vs 0.85), 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.