ILCG vs. IWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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 18.15%/yr vs 10.93%/yr for IWM. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ILCG achieves a 14.48% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 17.07% return. Over the past 10 years, ILCG has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 18.15%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 10.93% annualized return.

ILCG

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: 7.68%
• YTD: 14.48%
• 6M: 14.61%
• 1Y: 29.51%
• 3Y*: 26.55%
• 5Y*: 14.95%
• 10Y*: 18.15%

IWM

• 1D: -1.37%
• 1M: 3.52%
• YTD: 17.07%
• 6M: 15.83%
• 1Y: 39.10%
• 3Y*: 17.88%
• 5Y*: 6.11%
• 10Y*: 10.93%

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

ILCG vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	14.48%	16.71%	32.82%	40.41%	-31.75%	24.33%	38.56%	33.22%	2.06%	30.57%
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF	17.07%	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 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 6, 2004	0.78

The correlation between ILCG and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (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	49.8%	19.5%
Communication Services	14.5%	2.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	7.8%
Industrials	8.3%	17.1%
Financial Services	6.0%	15.8%
Healthcare	5.3%	15.8%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.4%	5.7%
Basic Materials	1.1%	4.5%
Utilities	0.8%	3.0%
Energy	0.5%	6.0%

Return for Risk

ILCG vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 46
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 50
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 41

IWM

IWM Risk / Return Rank: 62
IWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IWM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
IWM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

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.

	ILCG	IWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.82	2.05	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	2.85	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.34	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.89	3.56	-1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.68	12.64	-5.97
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ILCG vs. IWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.82, which is comparable to the IWM Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ILCG	IWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.82	2.05	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68	0.27	+0.41
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.85	0.48	+0.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.37	+0.22

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	ILCG	IWM	Difference
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	-1.02%	-1.49%	+0.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.22%	-10.77%	+2.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.43%	3.10%	+1.33%

Volatility

ILCG vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) is 4.40%, while iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a volatility of 5.75%. This indicates that ILCG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ILCG	IWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.40%	5.75%	-1.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.81%	13.53%	-0.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.31%	19.20%	-2.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.00%	22.52%	-0.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.53%	23.04%	-1.51%

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 0.40%, less than IWM's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.40%	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	0.88%	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

Can I hold both ILCG and IWM in my portfolio?

ILCG and IWM have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ILCG or IWM?

IWM has higher volatility (5.75%) compared to ILCG (4.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILCG dropped -52.98% vs IWM's -59.05%.

Which ETF is better, ILCG or IWM?

On 10-year performance, ILCG leads with 18.15% vs 10.93% for IWM. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ILCG or IWM?

Over the 10-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 18.15% return vs 10.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ILCG or IWM?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ILCG or IWM?

IWM has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.40% for ILCG.

What is the main difference between ILCG and IWM?

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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.82), 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.