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

Performance

IMCG vs. IAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU). 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 20.05% return, which is significantly higher than IAU's 2.98% return. Over the past 10 years, IMCG has outperformed IAU with an annualized return of 14.46%, while IAU has yielded a comparatively lower 13.31% annualized return.


IMCG

1D
-0.26%
1M
8.33%
YTD
20.05%
6M
18.28%
1Y
23.35%
3Y*
18.91%
5Y*
8.62%
10Y*
14.46%

IAU

1D
-0.98%
1M
-1.62%
YTD
2.98%
6M
5.50%
1Y
32.20%
3Y*
31.29%
5Y*
18.32%
10Y*
13.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IMCG vs. IAU - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IMCG
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF
20.05%6.55%18.14%20.73%-25.79%15.39%45.64%35.70%-3.68%25.57%
IAU
iShares Gold Trust
2.98%63.95%26.85%12.84%-0.63%-4.00%25.03%17.98%-1.76%12.91%

Correlation

The correlation between IMCG and IAU is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.17

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.14

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.08

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2005

0.10

The correlation between IMCG and IAU shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (10 years) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IMCG vs. IAU - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IMCG
IAU

Technology

30.4%

-

Industrials

26.6%

-

Consumer Cyclical

10.0%

-

Financial Services

9.1%

-

Healthcare

7.4%

-

Basic Materials

4.5%

-

Real Estate

3.4%
100.0%

Utilities

2.7%

-

Communication Services

2.6%

-

Energy

2.1%

-

Consumer Defensive

1.2%

-

Technology

IMCG
30.4%
IAU

-

Industrials

IMCG
26.6%
IAU

-

Consumer Cyclical

IMCG
10.0%
IAU

-

Financial Services

IMCG
9.1%
IAU

-

Healthcare

IMCG
7.4%
IAU

-

Basic Materials

IMCG
4.5%
IAU

-

Real Estate

IMCG
3.4%
IAU
100.0%

Utilities

IMCG
2.7%
IAU

-

Communication Services

IMCG
2.6%
IAU

-

Energy

IMCG
2.1%
IAU

-

Consumer Defensive

IMCG
1.2%
IAU

-

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. IAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMCG
IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4242
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
Martin Ratio Rank

IAU
IAU Risk / Return Rank: 3232
Overall Rank
IAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAU Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
IAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAU Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IMCG vs. IAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU). 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.


IMCGIAUDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.51

1.23

+0.29

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.18

1.62

+0.56

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.24

+0.02

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.31

1.69

+0.62

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

8.97

4.19

+4.79

IMCG vs. IAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the IAU Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMCG and IAU, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IMCGIAUDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.51

1.23

+0.29

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.43

1.03

-0.60

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.71

0.84

-0.13

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.62

-0.08

Drawdowns

IMCG vs. IAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMCG drawdown since its inception was -58.96%, which is greater than IAU's maximum drawdown of -45.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMCG and IAU.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IMCGIAUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.96%

-45.14%

-13.82%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.17%

-19.18%

+9.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.92%

-19.18%

-2.74%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.08%

-20.93%

-14.15%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.08%

-21.82%

-13.26%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.26%

-17.70%

+17.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.22%

-15.96%

+6.74%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.61%

7.71%

-5.10%

Volatility

IMCG vs. IAU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) is 4.65%, while iShares Gold Trust (IAU) has a volatility of 5.50%. This indicates that IMCG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IMCGIAUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.65%

5.50%

-0.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.53%

23.02%

-10.49%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.53%

26.42%

-10.89%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.17%

17.95%

+2.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.51%

15.90%

+4.61%

IMCG vs. IAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMCG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than IAU's 0.25% 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

IMCG vs. IAU - Dividend Comparison

IMCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, while IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IAU
iShares Gold Trust
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IMCG
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF
0.65%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


IMCG and IAU have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IAU has higher volatility (5.50%) compared to IMCG (4.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMCG dropped -58.96% vs IAU's -45.14%.

On 10-year performance, IMCG leads with 14.46% vs 13.31% for IAU. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IMCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.65%. 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 14.46% return vs 13.31%. 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 0.25% for IAU.

IMCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.65%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.

IMCG is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while IAU is Gold. IMCG tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index, while IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for IMCG and 0.25% for IAU.

IMCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.51 vs 1.23), 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 IAU

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