GGUS vs. IWF
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 23.97% vs 25.60% for IWF. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. GGUS charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWF.
Performance
GGUS vs. IWF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GGUS achieves a 7.56% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's 7.11% return.
GGUS
- 1D
- -1.06%
- 1M
- 6.20%
- YTD
- 7.56%
- 6M
- 7.02%
- 1Y
- 23.97%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWF
- 1D
- -1.29%
- 1M
- 5.68%
- YTD
- 7.11%
- 6M
- 6.51%
- 1Y
- 25.60%
- 3Y*
- 24.80%
- 5Y*
- 15.24%
- 10Y*
- 18.49%
GGUS vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
GGUS Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF | 7.56% | 17.32% | 30.88% | 4.54% |
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 7.11% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 4.44% |
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 Dec 1, 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
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Healthcare
Industrials
Financial Services
Consumer Defensive
Real Estate
Energy
Basic Materials
Utilities
Technology
GGUS
IWF
Consumer Cyclical
GGUS
IWF
Communication Services
GGUS
IWF
Healthcare
GGUS
IWF
Industrials
GGUS
IWF
Financial Services
GGUS
IWF
Consumer Defensive
GGUS
IWF
Real Estate
GGUS
IWF
Energy
GGUS
IWF
Basic Materials
GGUS
IWF
Utilities
GGUS
IWF
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
GGUS vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank
GGUS
IWF
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.
| GGUS | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.07 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | 1.29 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.62 | 1.58 | +0.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.55 | 5.28 | +0.27 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GGUS | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.61 | 1.67 | -0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.72 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.88 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.30 | 0.40 | +0.90 |
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GGUS | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.28% | -1.66% | +0.38% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.20% | -22.08% | +18.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.33% | 4.86% | -0.53% |
Volatility
GGUS vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF (GGUS) is 3.41%, while iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a volatility of 3.61%. This indicates that GGUS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GGUS | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.41% | 3.61% | -0.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.30% | 11.66% | -0.36% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.00% | 15.44% | -0.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.96% | 21.40% | -2.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.96% | 20.97% | -2.01% |
GGUS vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison
GGUS has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than IWF's 0.19% 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 0.41%, more than IWF's 0.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GGUS Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF | 0.41% | 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 | 0.33% | 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
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.
IWF has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to GGUS (3.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGUS dropped -22.59% vs IWF's -64.25%.
On 1-year performance, IWF leads with 25.60% vs 23.97% for GGUS. On fees, GGUS is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, GGUS has been the lower-risk option at 3.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IWF has performed better with a 25.60% return vs 23.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GGUS is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWF.
GGUS has the higher dividend yield at 0.41%, compared with 0.33% for 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 0.19% for IWF.
IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.61), 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.
Find the right allocation for GGUS and IWF
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