ITB vs. IWD
ITB (iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF) and IWD (iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ITB is a Building & Construction fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index, while IWD is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Value Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ITB returned 14.32%/yr vs 11.56%/yr for IWD. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ITB charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IWD.
Performance
ITB vs. IWD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ITB achieves a 1.18% return, which is significantly lower than IWD's 16.71% return. Over the past 10 years, ITB has outperformed IWD with an annualized return of 14.32%, while IWD has yielded a comparatively lower 11.56% annualized return.
ITB
- 1D
- 0.31%
- 1M
- 12.49%
- YTD
- 1.18%
- 6M
- -4.59%
- 1Y
- 8.99%
- 3Y*
- 7.33%
- 5Y*
- 8.75%
- 10Y*
- 14.32%
IWD
- 1D
- 1.00%
- 1M
- 5.33%
- YTD
- 16.71%
- 6M
- 16.30%
- 1Y
- 31.10%
- 3Y*
- 18.07%
- 5Y*
- 11.00%
- 10Y*
- 11.56%
ITB vs. IWD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITB iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF | 1.18% | -5.26% | 2.06% | 68.91% | -26.26% | 49.25% | 26.42% | 48.70% | -30.92% | 59.65% |
IWD iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF | 16.71% | 15.68% | 14.17% | 11.34% | -7.75% | 24.95% | 2.73% | 26.12% | -8.45% | 13.45% |
Correlation
The correlation between ITB and IWD is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.69 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.69 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2006 | 0.67 |
The correlation between ITB and IWD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.
ITB vs. IWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
ITB
IWD
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Basic Materials
Real Estate
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Consumer Cyclical
ITB
IWD
Industrials
ITB
IWD
Basic Materials
ITB
IWD
Real Estate
ITB
IWD
Communication Services
ITB
-
IWD
Consumer Defensive
ITB
-
IWD
Energy
ITB
-
IWD
Financial Services
ITB
-
IWD
Healthcare
ITB
-
IWD
Technology
ITB
-
IWD
Utilities
ITB
-
IWD
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
ITB vs. IWD — Risk / Return Rank
ITB
IWD
ITB vs. IWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF (IWD). 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.
| ITB | IWD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.49 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.17 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.08 | 1.50 | -0.43 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.35 | 4.60 | -4.26 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.67 | 19.12 | -18.45 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ITB vs. IWD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ITB drawdown since its inception was -86.53%, which is greater than IWD's maximum drawdown of -60.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ITB and IWD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ITB | IWD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -86.53% | -60.10% | -26.43% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -26.04% | -6.79% | -19.25% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -33.35% | -15.71% | -17.64% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -40.55% | -19.04% | -21.51% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -52.10% | -38.51% | -13.59% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -23.30% | 0.00% | -23.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -37.08% | -8.64% | -28.44% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 13.49% | 1.63% | +11.86% |
Volatility
ITB vs. IWD - Volatility Comparison
iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) has a higher volatility of 9.26% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF (IWD) at 4.04%. This indicates that ITB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ITB | IWD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.26% | 4.04% | +5.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.89% | 8.55% | +12.34% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 29.80% | 11.19% | +18.61% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.29% | 14.88% | +14.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.06% | 17.32% | +12.74% |
ITB vs. IWD - Expense Ratio Comparison
ITB has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is higher than IWD's 0.18% expense ratio.
Dividends
ITB vs. IWD - Dividend Comparison
ITB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, less than IWD's 1.78% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ITB iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF | 1.33% | 1.67% | 0.46% | 0.48% | 0.86% | 0.37% | 0.46% | 0.50% | 0.63% | 0.28% | 0.43% | 0.34% |
IWD iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF | 1.78% | 1.69% | 1.87% | 2.02% | 2.15% | 1.62% | 2.05% | 2.45% | 2.71% | 2.09% | 2.25% | 2.47% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ITB and IWD have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ITB has higher volatility (9.26%) compared to IWD (4.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ITB dropped -86.53% vs IWD's -60.10%.
On 10-year performance, ITB leads with 14.32% vs 11.56% for IWD. On fees, IWD is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IWD has been the lower-risk option at 4.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, ITB has performed better with a 14.32% return vs 11.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWD is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for ITB.
IWD has the higher dividend yield at 1.78%, compared with 1.33% for ITB.
ITB is categorized as Building & Construction, while IWD is Large Cap Value Equities. ITB tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index, while IWD tracks Russell 1000 Value Index. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for ITB and 0.18% for IWD.
IWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 0.30), 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.
Find the right allocation for ITB and IWD
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