PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IMCG vs. FAD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IMCG vs. FAD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) and First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMCG achieves a 19.44% return, which is significantly higher than FAD's 13.47% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IMCG having a 14.11% annualized return and FAD not far behind at 13.70%.


IMCG

1D
-0.08%
1M
-2.22%
6M
16.42%
YTD
19.44%
1Y
19.29%
3Y*
15.82%
5Y*
7.06%
10Y*
14.11%
ALL TIME*
11.36%

FAD

1D
-0.06%
1M
-4.21%
6M
10.52%
YTD
13.47%
1Y
24.70%
3Y*
19.42%
5Y*
9.39%
10Y*
13.70%
ALL TIME*
10.35%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$3.18M$2.71M$2.70M
$8.72M$8.89M$9.03M

IMCG vs. FAD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IMCG
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF
19.44%6.55%18.14%20.73%-25.79%15.39%45.64%35.70%-3.68%25.57%
FAD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund
13.47%17.23%23.85%19.07%-24.06%21.17%34.92%26.66%-6.45%25.75%

Correlation

The correlation between IMCG and FAD is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.


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

0.94

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

0.95

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

0.95

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

0.94

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2007

0.87

The correlation between IMCG and FAD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

IMCG vs. FAD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IMCG
FAD

Technology

25.1%
28.2%

Industrials

24.5%
24.4%

Financial Services

11.7%
7.6%

Consumer Cyclical

9.8%
9.9%

Healthcare

7.2%
15.9%

Basic Materials

6.8%
2.5%

Real Estate

3.9%
3.8%

Utilities

3.3%
1.4%

Energy

3.2%
1.4%

Communication Services

2.2%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

2.0%
2.1%

Technology

IMCG
25.1%
FAD
28.2%

Industrials

IMCG
24.5%
FAD
24.4%

Financial Services

IMCG
11.7%
FAD
7.6%

Consumer Cyclical

IMCG
9.8%
FAD
9.9%

Healthcare

IMCG
7.2%
FAD
15.9%

Basic Materials

IMCG
6.8%
FAD
2.5%

Real Estate

IMCG
3.9%
FAD
3.8%

Utilities

IMCG
3.3%
FAD
1.4%

Energy

IMCG
3.2%
FAD
1.4%

Communication Services

IMCG
2.2%
FAD
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

IMCG
2.0%
FAD
2.1%

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

IMCG vs. FAD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IMCG
IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank

FAD
FAD Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
FAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
FAD Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
FAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
FAD Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
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.

IMCG vs. FAD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) and First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD). 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.


IMCGFADDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.07

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.19

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.70

2.10

-0.40

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.41

6.53

-0.12

IMCG vs. FAD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is comparable to the FAD Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMCG and FAD, 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

IMCG vs. FAD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMCG drawdown since its inception was -58.96%, which is greater than FAD's maximum drawdown of -54.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMCG and FAD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IMCGFADDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.96%

-54.33%

-4.63%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.17%

-10.66%

+0.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.92%

-23.55%

+1.63%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.08%

-31.99%

-3.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.08%

-37.25%

+2.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.25%

-8.21%

+4.96%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.17%

-9.60%

+0.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.70%

3.42%

-0.72%

Volatility

IMCG vs. FAD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) is 3.48%, while First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) has a volatility of 6.04%. This indicates that IMCG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FAD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IMCGFADDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.48%

6.04%

-2.56%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.04%

16.39%

-2.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.92%

20.54%

-3.62%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.36%

20.87%

-0.51%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.55%

21.35%

-0.80%

IMCG vs. FAD - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMCG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than FAD's 0.63% expense ratio.


Dividends

IMCG vs. FAD - Dividend Comparison

IMCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, more than FAD's 0.10% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FAD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund
0.10%0.09%0.59%0.51%0.60%0.09%0.32%0.48%0.20%0.22%0.64%0.41%
IMCG
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF
0.63%0.78%0.78%0.85%0.91%0.41%0.09%0.30%0.35%0.45%0.52%0.38%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, IMCG and FAD move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

FAD has higher volatility (6.04%) compared to IMCG (3.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMCG dropped -58.96% vs FAD's -54.33%.

On 10-year performance, IMCG leads with 14.11% vs 13.70% for FAD. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IMCG has been the lower-risk option at 3.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IMCG has performed better with a 14.11% return vs 13.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IMCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for FAD.

IMCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.63%, compared with 0.10% for FAD.

IMCG tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index, while FAD tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Multi Cap Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for IMCG and 0.63% for FAD.

FAD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs 1.02), 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 IMCG and FAD

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