HWSM vs. IMCV
HWSM (Hotchkis & Wiley SMID Cap Diversified Value ETF) and IMCV (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Value Equities funds. HWSM is actively managed, while IMCV is passively managed. Over the past year, HWSM returned 26.16% vs 25.32% for IMCV. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. HWSM charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for IMCV.
Performance
HWSM vs. IMCV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with HWSM having a 10.77% return and IMCV slightly higher at 10.94%.
HWSM
- 1D
- 1.25%
- 1M
- 4.08%
- YTD
- 10.77%
- 6M
- 12.03%
- 1Y
- 26.16%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IMCV
- 1D
- 0.89%
- 1M
- 2.32%
- YTD
- 10.94%
- 6M
- 12.09%
- 1Y
- 25.32%
- 3Y*
- 17.27%
- 5Y*
- 8.88%
- 10Y*
- 10.40%
HWSM vs. IMCV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
HWSM Hotchkis & Wiley SMID Cap Diversified Value ETF | 10.77% | 11.54% |
IMCV iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF | 10.94% | 12.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between HWSM and IMCV is 0.93, 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 | 0.93 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025 | 0.94 |
The correlation between HWSM and IMCV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
HWSM vs. IMCV — Risk / Return Rank
HWSM
IMCV
HWSM vs. IMCV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hotchkis & Wiley SMID Cap Diversified Value ETF (HWSM) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCV). 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.
| HWSM | IMCV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.51 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.65 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.39 | -0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.57 | 3.68 | -1.12 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.61 | 13.75 | -5.15 |
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
| HWSM | IMCV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.68 | 2.19 | -0.51 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.54 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.53 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.96 | 0.48 | +0.48 |
Drawdowns
HWSM vs. IMCV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HWSM drawdown since its inception was -15.67%, smaller than the maximum IMCV drawdown of -64.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HWSM and IMCV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HWSM | IMCV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.67% | -64.74% | +49.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.23% | -6.90% | -3.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -18.63% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -19.87% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -46.33% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.76% | -8.41% | +5.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.05% | 1.85% | +1.20% |
Volatility
HWSM vs. IMCV - Volatility Comparison
Hotchkis & Wiley SMID Cap Diversified Value ETF (HWSM) has a higher volatility of 3.68% compared to iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCV) at 2.62%. This indicates that HWSM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IMCV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| HWSM | IMCV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.68% | 2.62% | +1.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.45% | 8.03% | +2.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.64% | 11.65% | +3.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.58% | 16.64% | +3.94% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.58% | 19.66% | +0.92% |
HWSM vs. IMCV - Expense Ratio Comparison
HWSM has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCV's 0.06% expense ratio.
Dividends
HWSM vs. IMCV - Dividend Comparison
HWSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, less than IMCV's 1.92% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HWSM Hotchkis & Wiley SMID Cap Diversified Value ETF | 1.20% | 1.33% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IMCV iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF | 1.92% | 2.23% | 2.36% | 2.30% | 2.36% | 1.86% | 2.61% | 2.45% | 2.61% | 1.87% | 2.09% | 2.29% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.93, HWSM and IMCV 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.
HWSM has higher volatility (3.68%) compared to IMCV (2.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HWSM dropped -15.67% vs IMCV's -64.74%.
On 1-year performance, HWSM leads with 26.16% vs 25.32% for IMCV. On fees, IMCV is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IMCV has been the lower-risk option at 2.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, HWSM has performed better with a 26.16% return vs 25.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IMCV is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for HWSM.
IMCV has the higher dividend yield at 1.92%, compared with 1.20% for HWSM.
They also come from different issuers: Hotchkis & Wiley and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for HWSM and 0.06% for IMCV.
IMCV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 1.68), 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 HWSM and IMCV
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