PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ISCG vs. RFG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ISCG vs. RFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ISCG achieves a 12.92% return, which is significantly lower than RFG's 22.14% return. Over the past 10 years, ISCG has outperformed RFG with an annualized return of 11.37%, while RFG has yielded a comparatively lower 10.49% annualized return.


ISCG

1D
-0.93%
1M
3.29%
YTD
12.92%
6M
12.57%
1Y
30.64%
3Y*
17.01%
5Y*
5.31%
10Y*
11.37%

RFG

1D
0.61%
1M
7.30%
YTD
22.14%
6M
21.89%
1Y
32.96%
3Y*
20.57%
5Y*
8.63%
10Y*
10.49%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ISCG vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ISCG
iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF
12.92%12.88%13.35%23.13%-26.75%-1.26%43.41%27.66%-6.91%24.68%
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF
22.14%8.80%17.80%16.42%-21.70%13.81%32.86%17.09%-13.98%20.46%

Correlation

The correlation between ISCG and RFG is 0.92, 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

0.92

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

0.91

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

0.92

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

0.91

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2006

0.89

The correlation between ISCG and RFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

ISCG vs. RFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ISCG
RFG

Industrials

24.6%
31.3%

Technology

21.4%
21.2%

Healthcare

15.4%
19.4%

Financial Services

10.6%
3.7%

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
7.6%

Real Estate

5.2%
2.2%

Basic Materials

3.5%
3.3%

Consumer Defensive

2.9%
3.1%

Communication Services

2.8%
0.6%

Energy

2.8%
5.4%

Utilities

1.0%
2.4%

Industrials

ISCG
24.6%
RFG
31.3%

Technology

ISCG
21.4%
RFG
21.2%

Healthcare

ISCG
15.4%
RFG
19.4%

Financial Services

ISCG
10.6%
RFG
3.7%

Consumer Cyclical

ISCG
9.9%
RFG
7.6%

Real Estate

ISCG
5.2%
RFG
2.2%

Basic Materials

ISCG
3.5%
RFG
3.3%

Consumer Defensive

ISCG
2.9%
RFG
3.1%

Communication Services

ISCG
2.8%
RFG
0.6%

Energy

ISCG
2.8%
RFG
5.4%

Utilities

ISCG
1.0%
RFG
2.4%

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

ISCG vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISCG
ISCG Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
ISCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ISCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
ISCG Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
ISCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
ISCG Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank

RFG
RFG Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
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.

ISCG vs. RFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). 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.


ISCGRFGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.15

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.31

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.69

3.18

-0.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.31

12.89

-2.59

ISCG vs. RFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is comparable to the RFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISCG and RFG, 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


ISCGRFGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.70

1.79

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.23

0.38

-0.15

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

0.46

+0.04

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.41

0.43

-0.02

Drawdowns

ISCG vs. RFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISCG drawdown since its inception was -57.72%, which is greater than RFG's maximum drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISCG and RFG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ISCGRFGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-57.72%

-51.93%

-5.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.43%

-10.41%

-1.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.71%

-26.71%

0.00%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.80%

-35.16%

-2.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.48%

-42.92%

+1.44%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.93%

0.00%

-0.93%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.63%

-8.97%

-2.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.98%

2.56%

+0.42%

Volatility

ISCG vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF (ISCG) is 4.93%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a volatility of 6.50%. This indicates that ISCG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ISCGRFGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.93%

6.50%

-1.57%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.09%

14.72%

-1.63%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.13%

18.53%

-0.40%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.95%

22.81%

+0.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.16%

23.05%

+0.11%

ISCG vs. RFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISCG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than RFG's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

ISCG vs. RFG - Dividend Comparison

ISCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, more than RFG's 0.31% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ISCG
iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Growth ETF
0.56%0.61%0.84%0.77%0.92%0.62%0.10%0.27%0.40%0.52%1.19%0.64%
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF
0.31%0.43%0.38%0.99%0.78%0.05%0.27%0.64%0.76%0.66%0.35%0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.92, ISCG and RFG 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.

RFG has higher volatility (6.50%) compared to ISCG (4.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISCG dropped -57.72% vs RFG's -51.93%.

On 10-year performance, ISCG leads with 11.37% vs 10.49% for RFG. On fees, ISCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, ISCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ISCG has performed better with a 11.37% return vs 10.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ISCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.

ISCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.31% for RFG.

ISCG tracks Morningstar US Small Cap Broad Growth Extended Index, while RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for ISCG and 0.35% for RFG.

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 1.70), 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 ISCG and RFG

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