GK vs. ILCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GK (AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GK is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GK returned 20.83%/yr vs 26.55%/yr for ILCG. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GK charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

GK vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF (GK) 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, GK achieves a 17.29% return, which is significantly higher than ILCG's 14.48% return.

GK

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: 9.38%
• YTD: 17.29%
• 6M: 16.22%
• 1Y: 34.45%
• 3Y*: 20.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: 7.68%
• YTD: 14.48%
• 6M: 14.61%
• 1Y: 29.51%
• 3Y*: 26.55%
• 5Y*: 14.95%
• 10Y*: 18.15%

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

GK vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GK AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF	17.29%	17.78%	20.10%	21.19%	-42.76%	4.95%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	14.48%	16.71%	32.82%	40.41%	-31.75%	9.67%

Correlation

The correlation between GK and ILCG is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 6, 2021	0.93

The correlation between GK and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

GK vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GK	ILCG
Technology	38.9%	49.8%
Communication Services	16.6%	14.5%
Industrials	16.3%	8.3%
Healthcare	7.6%	5.3%
Financial Services	6.1%	6.0%
Utilities	4.5%	0.8%
Consumer Cyclical	3.0%	10.6%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	1.6%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Energy	-	0.5%
Real Estate	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

GK vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GK

GK Risk / Return Rank: 54
GK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
GK Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
GK Omega Ratio Rank: 57
GK Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
GK Martin Ratio Rank: 52

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 46
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 50
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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.

GK vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF (GK) 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.

	GK	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.00	1.82	+0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	2.45	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.32	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.29	1.89	+0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.76	6.68	+2.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GK vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GK Sharpe Ratio is 2.00, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GK 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GK	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.00	1.82	+0.18
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.85	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.16	0.59	-0.42

Drawdowns

GK vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GK drawdown since its inception was -47.72%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GK and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GK	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.72%	-52.98%	+5.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.13%	-15.65%	+0.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.62%	-23.10%	-0.52%
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	-0.42%	-1.02%	+0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.00%	-8.22%	-15.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.94%	4.43%	-0.49%

Volatility

GK vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF (GK) has a higher volatility of 5.76% compared to iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) at 4.40%. This indicates that GK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GK	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.76%	4.40%	+1.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.64%	12.81%	+0.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.30%	16.31%	+0.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.93%	22.00%	+1.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.93%	21.53%	+2.40%

GK vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

GK has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

GK vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

GK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than ILCG's 0.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GK AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%	0.13%	1.30%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.40%	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 GK and ILCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, GK 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, GK or ILCG?

GK has higher volatility (5.76%) compared to ILCG (4.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GK dropped -47.72% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, GK or ILCG?

On 3-year performance, ILCG leads with 26.55% vs 20.83% for GK. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GK or ILCG?

Over the 3-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 26.55% return vs 20.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GK or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GK.

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

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.07% for GK.

What is the main difference between GK and ILCG?

They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GK and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.00 vs 1.82), 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.