PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ILCG vs. IWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ILCG vs. IWM

Last updated Aug 4, 2026
Documentation

ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ILCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ILCG returned 17.23%/yr vs 10.63%/yr for IWM. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ILCG charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.

Performance

ILCG vs. IWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ILCG achieves a 9.70% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.84% return. Over the past 10 years, ILCG has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 17.23%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 10.63% annualized return.

ILCG

1D
1.92%
1M
-0.14%
6M
8.78%
YTD
9.70%
1Y
16.20%
3Y*
23.09%
5Y*
11.74%
10Y*
17.23%
ALL TIME*
11.61%

IWM

1D
1.72%
1M
-0.46%
6M
13.45%
YTD
20.84%
1Y
39.26%
3Y*
16.48%
5Y*
7.64%
10Y*
10.63%
ALL TIME*
8.80%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

ILCG

iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
$5.71M$6.91M$9.84M

IWM

iShares Russell 2000 ETF
$6.77B$6.36B$7.44B

ILCG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF		9.70%16.71%32.82%40.41%-31.75%24.33%38.56%33.22%2.06%30.57%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		20.84%12.66%11.38%16.83%-20.48%14.54%20.03%25.39%-11.12%14.58%

Correlation

The correlation between ILCG and IWM is 0.68, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.68

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.66

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.74

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.71

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2004

0.78

The correlation between ILCG and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (3 years) to 0.78 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ILCG vs. IWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ILCG
IWM

Technology

54.1%
13.6%

Industrials

10.9%
13.7%

Communication Services

9.7%
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

9.2%
9.2%

Healthcare

5.3%
20.0%

Financial Services

4.7%
18.3%

Consumer Defensive

1.6%
2.8%

Real Estate

1.5%
7.0%

Basic Materials

1.4%
4.5%

Utilities

0.9%
2.9%

Energy

0.7%
5.6%

Technology

ILCG
54.1%
IWM
13.6%

Industrials

ILCG
10.9%
IWM
13.7%

Communication Services

ILCG
9.7%
IWM
2.0%

Consumer Cyclical

ILCG
9.2%
IWM
9.2%

Healthcare

ILCG
5.3%
IWM
20.0%

Financial Services

ILCG
4.7%
IWM
18.3%

Consumer Defensive

ILCG
1.6%
IWM
2.8%

Real Estate

ILCG
1.5%
IWM
7.0%

Basic Materials

ILCG
1.4%
IWM
4.5%

Utilities

ILCG
0.9%
IWM
2.9%

Energy

ILCG
0.7%
IWM
5.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Morningstar Growth ETF

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

Often compared with ILCG:
ILCG vs. SCHGILCG vs. IUSGILCG vs. VUGILCG vs. ILCBILCG vs. QQQILCG vs. VOOILCG vs. MGK
Often compared with IWM:
IWM vs. SPYIWM vs. VTWOIWM vs. IJRIWM vs. AVUVIWM vs. VOOIWM vs. IWNIWM vs. IWO

Return for Risk

ILCG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
ILCG
ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
Martin Ratio Rank
IWM
IWM Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ILCG vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). 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.

ILCGIWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.87
2.04

-1.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.28
2.85

-1.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.16

1.34

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.04

3.58

-2.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.30

12.68

-9.38

ILCG vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILCG Sharpe Ratio is 0.87, which is lower than the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ILCG and IWM, 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...

Drawdowns

ILCG vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ILCG drawdown since its inception was -52.98%, smaller than the maximum IWM drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILCG and IWM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ILCGIWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-52.98%

-59.05%

+6.07%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.65%

-11.03%

-4.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.10%

-27.50%

+4.40%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.38%

-31.91%

-3.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.38%

-41.13%

+5.75%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.15%

-1.41%

-3.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.20%

-10.71%

+2.51%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.92%

3.11%

+1.81%

Volatility

ILCG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a higher volatility of 6.33% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 4.21%. This indicates that ILCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ILCGIWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.33%

4.21%

+2.12%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.61%

14.13%

+1.48%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.74%

19.36%

-0.62%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.39%

22.50%

-0.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.71%

23.02%

-1.31%

ILCG vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ILCG has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than IWM's 0.19% 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

ILCG vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison

ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than IWM's 0.90% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF		0.42%0.47%0.50%0.69%0.75%0.34%0.28%0.54%0.81%0.89%0.95%0.99%
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF		0.90%1.04%1.15%1.35%1.48%0.94%1.04%1.26%1.40%1.26%1.38%1.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

ILCG and IWM have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ILCG has higher volatility (6.33%) compared to IWM (4.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILCG dropped -52.98% vs IWM's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, ILCG leads with 17.23% vs 10.63% for IWM. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IWM has been the lower-risk option at 4.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 17.23% return vs 10.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWM.

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.42% for ILCG.

ILCG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IWM is Small Cap Blend Equities. ILCG tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross, while IWM tracks Russell 2000 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for ILCG and 0.19% for IWM.

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 0.87), 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 ILCG and IWM

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