IEFA vs. IWP
IEFA (iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF) and IWP (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IEFA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net), while IWP is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Midcap Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IEFA returned 9.37%/yr vs 12.22%/yr for IWP. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IEFA charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for IWP.
Performance
IEFA vs. IWP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IEFA achieves a 7.49% return, which is significantly higher than IWP's 1.66% return. Over the past 10 years, IEFA has underperformed IWP with an annualized return of 9.37%, while IWP has yielded a comparatively higher 12.22% annualized return.
IEFA
- 1D
- 0.63%
- 1M
- -1.17%
- YTD
- 7.49%
- 6M
- 10.04%
- 1Y
- 19.61%
- 3Y*
- 16.13%
- 5Y*
- 7.82%
- 10Y*
- 9.37%
IWP
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 1.28%
- YTD
- 1.66%
- 6M
- 0.18%
- 1Y
- 2.82%
- 3Y*
- 15.01%
- 5Y*
- 5.99%
- 10Y*
- 12.22%
IEFA vs. IWP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IEFA iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF | 7.49% | 32.08% | 3.26% | 17.95% | -15.24% | 11.63% | 8.18% | 22.64% | -14.14% | 26.57% |
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF | 1.66% | 8.45% | 21.86% | 25.70% | -26.90% | 12.60% | 35.25% | 35.04% | -4.89% | 24.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between IEFA and IWP is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.64 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.66 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2012 | 0.72 |
The correlation between IEFA and IWP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.
IEFA vs. IWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IEFA
IWP
Financial Services
Industrials
Technology
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Energy
Utilities
Real Estate
Financial Services
IEFA
IWP
Industrials
IEFA
IWP
Technology
IEFA
IWP
Healthcare
IEFA
IWP
Consumer Cyclical
IEFA
IWP
Basic Materials
IEFA
IWP
Consumer Defensive
IEFA
IWP
Communication Services
IEFA
IWP
Energy
IEFA
IWP
Utilities
IEFA
IWP
Real Estate
IEFA
IWP
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
IEFA vs. IWP — Risk / Return Rank
IEFA
IWP
IEFA vs. IWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). 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.
| IEFA | IWP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.13 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.52 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.04 | +0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.71 | 0.19 | +1.52 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.52 | 0.56 | +5.96 |
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
| IEFA | IWP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.30 | 0.17 | +1.13 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.47 | 0.27 | +0.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.54 | 0.57 | -0.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.50 | 0.42 | +0.08 |
Drawdowns
IEFA vs. IWP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IEFA drawdown since its inception was -34.78%, smaller than the maximum IWP drawdown of -56.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEFA and IWP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IEFA | IWP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.78% | -56.92% | +22.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.50% | -14.79% | +3.29% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.76% | -25.20% | +11.44% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -30.41% | -38.62% | +8.21% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -34.78% | -38.62% | +3.84% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.44% | -4.08% | +1.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.69% | -9.68% | +2.99% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.02% | 5.08% | -2.06% |
Volatility
IEFA vs. IWP - Volatility Comparison
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) have volatilities of 4.54% and 4.62%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IEFA | IWP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.54% | 4.62% | -0.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.74% | 12.93% | -0.19% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.22% | 16.71% | -1.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.55% | 22.34% | -5.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.32% | 21.70% | -4.38% |
IEFA vs. IWP - Expense Ratio Comparison
IEFA has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than IWP's 0.23% 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
IEFA vs. IWP - Dividend Comparison
IEFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.30%, more than IWP's 0.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IEFA iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF | 3.30% | 3.55% | 3.47% | 3.20% | 2.70% | 3.32% | 1.90% | 3.18% | 3.46% | 2.57% | 2.96% | 2.63% |
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF | 0.33% | 0.37% | 0.40% | 0.54% | 0.77% | 0.30% | 0.38% | 0.59% | 1.02% | 0.78% | 1.16% | 0.98% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IEFA and IWP have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWP has higher volatility (4.62%) compared to IEFA (4.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IEFA dropped -34.78% vs IWP's -56.92%.
On 10-year performance, IWP leads with 12.22% vs 9.37% for IEFA. On fees, IEFA is cheaper at 0.07% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, IWP has performed better with a 12.22% return vs 9.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IEFA is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.
IEFA has the higher dividend yield at 3.30%, compared with 0.33% for IWP.
IEFA is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while IWP is Mid Cap Growth Equities. IEFA tracks MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net), while IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IEFA and 0.23% for IWP.
IEFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.30 vs 0.17), 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 IEFA and IWP
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