ITB vs. IWF

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

ITB (iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF) and IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ITB is a Building & Construction fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index, while IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ITB returned 14.32%/yr vs 18.50%/yr for IWF. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ITB charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IWF.

Performance

ITB vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ITB achieves a 1.18% return, which is significantly lower than IWF's 5.29% return. Over the past 10 years, ITB has underperformed IWF with an annualized return of 14.32%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively higher 18.50% 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%

IWF

• 1D: 2.35%
• 1M: 0.08%
• YTD: 5.29%
• 6M: 6.31%
• 1Y: 23.23%
• 3Y*: 22.85%
• 5Y*: 14.45%
• 10Y*: 18.50%

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

ITB vs. IWF - 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%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	5.29%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	27.43%	38.25%	35.86%	-1.67%	29.95%

Correlation

The correlation between ITB and IWF is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.38
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2006	0.60

Over the past year, the correlation between ITB and IWF has dropped to 0.22 - well below their long-term average of 0.60, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

ITB vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ITB	IWF
Consumer Cyclical	71.3%	12.7%
Industrials	19.5%	5.4%
Basic Materials	8.7%	0.3%
Real Estate	0.5%	0.4%
Communication Services	-	12.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.4%
Energy	-	0.3%
Financial Services	-	5.0%
Healthcare	-	6.9%
Technology	-	53.9%
Utilities	-	0.3%

Return for Risk

ITB vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

ITB

ITB Risk / Return Rank: 14
ITB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
ITB Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
ITB Omega Ratio Rank: 15
ITB Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
ITB Martin Ratio Rank: 12

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 40
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 43
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

ITB vs. IWF - 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 Growth ETF (IWF). 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	IWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.30	1.45	-1.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.72	2.00	-1.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.26	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.35	1.43	-1.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.67	4.72	-4.05

ITB vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ITB Sharpe Ratio is 0.30, which is lower than the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ITB and IWF, 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

ITB vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ITB drawdown since its inception was -86.53%, which is greater than IWF's maximum drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ITB and IWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	ITB	IWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-86.53%	-64.25%	-22.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.04%	-16.27%	-9.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.35%	-23.36%	-9.99%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.55%	-32.72%	-7.83%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.10%	-32.72%	-19.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.30%	-3.34%	-19.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-37.08%	-22.06%	-15.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.49%	4.94%	+8.55%

Volatility

ITB vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) has a higher volatility of 9.26% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) at 5.74%. This indicates that ITB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ITB	IWF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.26%	5.74%	+3.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.89%	12.62%	+8.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.80%	16.09%	+13.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.29%	21.49%	+7.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.06%	21.02%	+9.04%

ITB vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

ITB has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is higher than IWF's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

ITB vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

ITB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, more than IWF's 0.43% 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%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.43%	0.36%	0.46%	0.67%	0.91%	0.49%	0.66%	0.99%	1.27%	1.10%	1.43%	1.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ITB and IWF in my portfolio?

ITB and IWF have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ITB or IWF?

ITB has higher volatility (9.26%) compared to IWF (5.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ITB dropped -86.53% vs IWF's -64.25%.

Which ETF is better, ITB or IWF?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.50% vs 14.32% for ITB. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 5.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ITB or IWF?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.50% return vs 14.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ITB or IWF?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for ITB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ITB or IWF?

ITB has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.43% for IWF.

What is the main difference between ITB and IWF?

ITB is categorized as Building & Construction, while IWF is Large Cap Growth Equities. ITB tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index, while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for ITB and 0.18% for IWF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 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.