PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IEFA vs. IWP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IEFA vs. IWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

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

IEFA vs. IWP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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

22.5%
6.9%

Industrials

20.1%
24.2%

Technology

10.8%
20.0%

Healthcare

9.5%
13.5%

Consumer Cyclical

8.0%
21.1%

Basic Materials

7.0%
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

6.6%
1.5%

Communication Services

4.4%
4.2%

Energy

3.8%
3.8%

Utilities

3.6%
2.9%

Real Estate

3.0%
1.4%

Financial Services

IEFA
22.5%
IWP
6.9%

Industrials

IEFA
20.1%
IWP
24.2%

Technology

IEFA
10.8%
IWP
20.0%

Healthcare

IEFA
9.5%
IWP
13.5%

Consumer Cyclical

IEFA
8.0%
IWP
21.1%

Basic Materials

IEFA
7.0%
IWP
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

IEFA
6.6%
IWP
1.5%

Communication Services

IEFA
4.4%
IWP
4.2%

Energy

IEFA
3.8%
IWP
3.8%

Utilities

IEFA
3.6%
IWP
2.9%

Real Estate

IEFA
3.0%
IWP
1.4%

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

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

IEFA
IEFA Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
IEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
IEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank

IWP
IWP Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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.


IEFAIWPDifference
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

IEFA vs. IWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IEFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is higher than the IWP Sharpe Ratio of 0.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEFA and IWP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IEFAIWPDifference

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


IEFAIWPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest 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 Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.44%

-4.08%

+1.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.69%

-9.68%

+2.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth 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


IEFAIWPDifference

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.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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.

Portfolio Optimizer

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