IGF vs. IWF

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

IGF (iShares Global Infrastructure ETF) and IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IGF is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IGF returned 8.53%/yr vs 18.15%/yr for IWF. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IGF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IWF.

Performance

IGF vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IGF achieves a 8.95% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's 2.83% return. Over the past 10 years, IGF has underperformed IWF with an annualized return of 8.53%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively higher 18.15% annualized return.

IGF

• 1D: 1.21%
• 1M: -0.77%
• YTD: 8.95%
• 6M: 9.24%
• 1Y: 16.47%
• 3Y*: 16.15%
• 5Y*: 10.07%
• 10Y*: 8.53%

IWF

• 1D: 1.57%
• 1M: -1.44%
• YTD: 2.83%
• 6M: 1.71%
• 1Y: 19.30%
• 3Y*: 22.57%
• 5Y*: 13.90%
• 10Y*: 18.15%

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

IGF vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	8.95%	21.31%	14.81%	6.14%	-1.26%	11.57%	-6.50%	25.82%	-9.95%	19.31%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	2.83%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	27.43%	38.25%	35.86%	-1.67%	29.95%

Correlation

The correlation between IGF and IWF is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2007	0.65

Over the past year, the correlation between IGF and IWF has dropped to 0.31 - well below their long-term average of 0.65, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IGF vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IGF	IWF
Utilities	41.1%	1.1%
Industrials	38.8%	5.0%
Energy	20.1%	0.4%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.4%
Basic Materials	-	0.3%
Communication Services	-	12.3%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.7%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.5%
Financial Services	-	4.9%
Healthcare	-	7.0%
Technology	-	53.2%

Return for Risk

IGF vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IGF

IGF Risk / Return Rank: 58
IGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
IGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
IGF Omega Ratio Rank: 54
IGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
IGF Martin Ratio Rank: 56

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 36
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 39
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

IGF vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	IGF	IWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	1.21	+0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.25	1.70	+0.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.22	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.82	1.19	+1.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.14	3.93	+4.21

IGF vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IGF Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is comparable to the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IGF and IWF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IGF vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IGF drawdown since its inception was -58.33%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGF and IWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	IGF	IWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.33%	-64.25%	+5.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.87%	-16.27%	+10.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.28%	-23.36%	+9.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.83%	-32.72%	+11.89%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.11%	-32.72%	-9.39%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.63%	-5.59%	+1.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.86%	-22.06%	+10.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	4.92%	-2.89%

Volatility

IGF vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF) is 3.81%, while iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a volatility of 5.43%. This indicates that IGF 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.

Volatility by Period

	IGF	IWF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.81%	5.43%	-1.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.71%	12.40%	-3.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.57%	15.96%	-5.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.00%	21.47%	-7.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.83%	21.01%	-4.18%

IGF vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IGF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than IWF's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

IGF vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

IGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, more than IWF's 0.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IGF iShares Global Infrastructure ETF	2.96%	3.23%	3.21%	3.36%	2.67%	2.42%	2.33%	3.27%	3.52%	2.95%	2.98%	3.25%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.35%	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

Can I hold both IGF and IWF in my portfolio?

IGF and IWF have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IGF or IWF?

IWF has higher volatility (5.43%) compared to IGF (3.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IGF dropped -58.33% vs IWF's -64.25%.

Which ETF is better, IGF or IWF?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.15% vs 8.53% for IGF. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IGF or IWF?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.15% return vs 8.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IGF or IWF?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for IGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IGF or IWF?

IGF has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IGF and IWF?

IGF is categorized as Industrials Equities, while IWF is Large Cap Growth Equities. IGF tracks S&P Global Infrastructure Index, while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for IGF and 0.18% for IWF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 1.21), 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.