IMCG vs. IWR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IMCG (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds from iShares - IMCG tracks the Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index while IWR tracks the Russell Midcap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IMCG returned 14.46%/yr vs 11.58%/yr for IWR. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IMCG charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWR.

Performance

IMCG vs. IWR - 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 Midcap ETF (IWR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMCG achieves a 20.05% return, which is significantly higher than IWR's 12.72% return. Over the past 10 years, IMCG has outperformed IWR with an annualized return of 14.46%, while IWR has yielded a comparatively lower 11.58% 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%

IWR

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: 3.87%
• YTD: 12.72%
• 6M: 13.40%
• 1Y: 23.20%
• 3Y*: 17.35%
• 5Y*: 8.20%
• 10Y*: 11.58%

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

IMCG vs. IWR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
IWR iShares Russell Midcap ETF	12.72%	10.37%	15.21%	17.05%	-17.48%	22.44%	16.93%	30.23%	-9.10%	18.25%

Correlation

The correlation between IMCG and IWR 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	0.96
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 6, 2004	0.92

The correlation between IMCG and IWR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

IMCG vs. IWR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IMCG	IWR
Technology	30.4%	17.2%
Industrials	26.6%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	11.2%
Financial Services	9.1%	12.5%
Healthcare	7.4%	8.7%
Basic Materials	4.5%	4.3%
Real Estate	3.4%	7.0%
Utilities	2.7%	6.1%
Communication Services	2.6%	3.4%
Energy	2.1%	7.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	4.1%

Return for Risk

IMCG vs. IWR — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMCG

IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 44
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

IWR

IWR Risk / Return Rank: 53
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 48
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. IWR - 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 Midcap ETF (IWR). 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.

	IMCG	IWR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	1.74	-0.23
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	2.50	-0.32
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.30	-0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.31	2.85	-0.54
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.97	11.01	-2.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMCG vs. IWR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the IWR Sharpe Ratio of 1.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMCG and IWR, 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

	IMCG	IWR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.51	1.74	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43	0.45	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71	0.60	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.49	+0.04

Drawdowns

IMCG vs. IWR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMCG drawdown since its inception was -58.96%, roughly equal to the maximum IWR drawdown of -58.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMCG and IWR.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMCG	IWR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.96%	-58.78%	-0.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.17%	-8.17%	-2.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.92%	-21.09%	-0.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.08%	-26.18%	-8.90%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.08%	-40.59%	+5.51%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	0.00%	-0.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.22%	-7.80%	-1.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.61%	2.11%	+0.50%

Volatility

IMCG vs. IWR - Volatility Comparison

iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) has a higher volatility of 4.65% compared to iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) at 3.25%. This indicates that IMCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMCG	IWR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.65%	3.25%	+1.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.53%	9.86%	+2.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.53%	13.38%	+2.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.17%	18.23%	+1.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.51%	19.37%	+1.14%

IMCG vs. IWR - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMCG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than IWR'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

IMCG vs. IWR - Dividend Comparison

IMCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, less than IWR's 1.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
IWR iShares Russell Midcap ETF	1.15%	1.29%	1.27%	1.43%	1.59%	1.04%	1.28%	1.43%	1.98%	1.52%	1.72%	1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMCG and IWR in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, IMCG and IWR 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 IWR?

IMCG has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to IWR (3.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMCG dropped -58.96% vs IWR's -58.78%.

Which ETF is better, IMCG or IWR?

On 10-year performance, IMCG leads with 14.46% vs 11.58% for IWR. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IWR has been the lower-risk option at 3.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMCG or IWR?

Over the 10-year period, IMCG has performed better with a 14.46% return vs 11.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMCG or IWR?

IMCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWR.

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

IWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 0.65% for IMCG.

What is the main difference between IMCG and IWR?

IMCG tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index, while IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for IMCG and 0.19% for IWR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.74 vs 1.51), 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.