ILCV vs. BGIG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ILCV (iShares Morningstar Value ETF) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. ILCV is passively managed, while BGIG is actively managed. Over the past year, ILCV returned 26.58% vs 19.51% for BGIG. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ILCV charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for BGIG.

Performance

ILCV vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Value ETF (ILCV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ILCV achieves a 7.75% return, which is significantly lower than BGIG's 9.84% return.

ILCV

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: 2.76%
• YTD: 7.75%
• 6M: 7.41%
• 1Y: 26.58%
• 3Y*: 18.61%
• 5Y*: 11.42%
• 10Y*: 11.68%

BGIG

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 1.82%
• YTD: 9.84%
• 6M: 9.56%
• 1Y: 19.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ILCV vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ILCV iShares Morningstar Value ETF	7.75%	18.79%	17.03%	6.25%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	9.84%	12.49%	16.84%	4.55%

Correlation

The correlation between ILCV and BGIG is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	0.87

The correlation between ILCV and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

ILCV vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ILCV	BGIG
Technology	23.8%	24.6%
Financial Services	16.5%	14.8%
Healthcare	11.5%	14.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	5.4%
Industrials	8.8%	10.6%
Communication Services	8.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	6.9%
Energy	6.0%	11.2%
Utilities	3.5%	7.9%
Basic Materials	2.4%	0.6%
Real Estate	2.0%	3.5%

Return for Risk

ILCV vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

ILCV

ILCV Risk / Return Rank: 82
ILCV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ILCV Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
ILCV Omega Ratio Rank: 81
ILCV Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
ILCV Martin Ratio Rank: 83

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 68
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

ILCV vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Value ETF (ILCV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

	ILCV	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.72	2.18	+0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.85	3.13	+0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.39	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.08	3.37	+0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.87	12.97	+3.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ILCV vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILCV Sharpe Ratio is 2.72, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ILCV and BGIG, 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

	ILCV	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.72	2.18	+0.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.70	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	1.38	-0.92

Drawdowns

ILCV vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ILCV drawdown since its inception was -58.63%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILCV and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	ILCV	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.63%	-13.24%	-45.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.55%	-5.81%	-0.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.58%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.60%	-0.28%	-0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.32%	-1.70%	-7.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.58%	1.51%	+0.07%

Volatility

ILCV vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Value ETF (ILCV) is 2.01%, while Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) has a volatility of 2.57%. This indicates that ILCV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ILCV	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.01%	2.57%	-0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.97%	6.72%	+0.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.82%	9.00%	+0.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.21%	11.94%	+2.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.66%	11.94%	+4.72%

ILCV vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ILCV has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

ILCV vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

ILCV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.63%, less than BGIG's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.75%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ILCV iShares Morningstar Value ETF	1.63%	1.77%	1.99%	2.27%	2.32%	2.01%	2.96%	2.70%	2.93%	2.32%	2.76%	3.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ILCV and BGIG in my portfolio?

ILCV and BGIG have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ILCV or BGIG?

BGIG has higher volatility (2.57%) compared to ILCV (2.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILCV dropped -58.63% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, ILCV or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, ILCV leads with 26.58% vs 19.51% for BGIG. On fees, ILCV is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCV has been the lower-risk option at 2.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ILCV or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, ILCV has performed better with a 26.58% return vs 19.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ILCV or BGIG?

ILCV is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ILCV or BGIG?

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 1.63% for ILCV.

What is the main difference between ILCV and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for ILCV and 0.45% for BGIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 2.18), 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.