IMCG vs. IWP

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IMCG (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and IWP (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds from iShares - IMCG tracks the Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index while IWP tracks the Russell Midcap Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IMCG returned 15.00%/yr vs 12.76%/yr for IWP. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IMCG charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for IWP.

Performance

IMCG vs. IWP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMCG achieves a 22.43% return, which is significantly higher than IWP's 3.69% return. Over the past 10 years, IMCG has outperformed IWP with an annualized return of 15.00%, while IWP has yielded a comparatively lower 12.76% annualized return.

IMCG

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: 6.84%
• YTD: 22.43%
• 6M: 20.06%
• 1Y: 26.63%
• 3Y*: 19.34%
• 5Y*: 8.31%
• 10Y*: 15.00%

IWP

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 1.79%
• YTD: 3.69%
• 6M: 1.21%
• 1Y: 6.05%
• 3Y*: 15.53%
• 5Y*: 5.46%
• 10Y*: 12.76%

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

IMCG vs. IWP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	22.43%	6.55%	18.14%	20.73%	-25.79%	15.39%	45.64%	35.70%	-3.68%	25.57%
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	3.69%	8.45%	21.86%	25.70%	-26.90%	12.60%	35.25%	35.04%	-4.89%	24.93%

Correlation

The correlation between IMCG and IWP is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2004	0.96

The correlation between IMCG and IWP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

IMCG vs. IWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IMCG	IWP
Technology	34.9%	22.3%
Industrials	25.3%	25.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	19.9%
Financial Services	8.6%	6.4%
Healthcare	6.9%	12.8%
Basic Materials	4.3%	0.4%
Real Estate	3.1%	1.4%
Utilities	2.5%	2.5%
Communication Services	2.4%	3.0%
Energy	1.7%	3.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	1.9%

Return for Risk

IMCG vs. IWP — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMCG

IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 50
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 44
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 58

IWP

IWP Risk / Return Rank: 13
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. IWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	IMCG	IWP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	0.36	+1.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	0.62	+1.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.07	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.63	0.41	+2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.03	1.19	+8.84

IMCG vs. IWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is higher than the IWP Sharpe Ratio of 0.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMCG and IWP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IMCG vs. IWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMCG drawdown since its inception was -58.96%, roughly equal to the maximum IWP drawdown of -56.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMCG and IWP.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMCG	IWP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.96%	-56.92%	-2.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.17%	-14.79%	+4.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.92%	-25.20%	+3.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.08%	-38.62%	+3.54%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.08%	-38.62%	+3.54%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.16%	+2.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.21%	-9.67%	+0.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.66%	5.11%	-2.45%

Volatility

IMCG vs. IWP - Volatility Comparison

iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) has a higher volatility of 7.22% compared to iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) at 5.63%. This indicates that IMCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMCG	IWP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.22%	5.63%	+1.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.99%	13.32%	+0.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.73%	17.05%	-0.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.36%	22.39%	-2.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.61%	21.73%	-1.12%

IMCG vs. IWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMCG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than IWP's 0.23% 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. IWP - Dividend Comparison

IMCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, more than IWP's 0.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.61%	0.78%	0.78%	0.85%	0.91%	0.41%	0.09%	0.30%	0.35%	0.45%	0.52%	0.38%
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.35%	0.37%	0.40%	0.54%	0.77%	0.30%	0.38%	0.59%	1.02%	0.78%	1.16%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMCG and IWP in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, IMCG and IWP 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.

Which is riskier, IMCG or IWP?

IMCG has higher volatility (7.22%) compared to IWP (5.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMCG dropped -58.96% vs IWP's -56.92%.

Which ETF is better, IMCG or IWP?

On 10-year performance, IMCG leads with 15.00% vs 12.76% for IWP. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IWP has been the lower-risk option at 5.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMCG or IWP?

Over the 10-year period, IMCG has performed better with a 15.00% return vs 12.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMCG or IWP?

IMCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IMCG or IWP?

IMCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.61%, compared with 0.35% for IWP.

What is the main difference between IMCG and IWP?

IMCG tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index, while IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for IMCG and 0.23% for IWP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IMCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 0.36), 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.