PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IVW vs. IWF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IVW vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF (IVW) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IVW achieves a 14.80% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's 8.52% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IVW having a 18.18% annualized return and IWF not far ahead at 18.64%.


IVW

1D
-0.15%
1M
8.27%
YTD
14.80%
6M
14.82%
1Y
36.00%
3Y*
28.41%
5Y*
16.48%
10Y*
18.18%

IWF

1D
-0.37%
1M
6.86%
YTD
8.52%
6M
7.80%
1Y
28.15%
3Y*
25.35%
5Y*
15.86%
10Y*
18.64%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IVW vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IVW
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
14.80%21.95%35.82%29.83%-29.50%31.80%33.19%30.77%-0.21%27.21%
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
8.52%18.33%33.12%42.59%-29.31%27.43%38.25%35.86%-1.67%29.95%

Correlation

The correlation between IVW and IWF is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.98

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

0.98

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

0.99

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

0.99

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2000

0.97

The correlation between IVW and IWF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

IVW vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IVW
IWF

Technology

49.3%
53.2%

Communication Services

18.0%
12.3%

Consumer Cyclical

9.4%
12.7%

Financial Services

8.9%
4.9%

Industrials

6.2%
5.0%

Healthcare

5.8%
7.0%

Consumer Defensive

1.0%
2.5%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.4%

Utilities

0.4%
1.1%

Basic Materials

0.4%
0.3%

Energy

0.1%
0.4%

Technology

IVW
49.3%
IWF
53.2%

Communication Services

IVW
18.0%
IWF
12.3%

Consumer Cyclical

IVW
9.4%
IWF
12.7%

Financial Services

IVW
8.9%
IWF
4.9%

Industrials

IVW
6.2%
IWF
5.0%

Healthcare

IVW
5.8%
IWF
7.0%

Consumer Defensive

IVW
1.0%
IWF
2.5%

Real Estate

IVW
0.6%
IWF
0.4%

Utilities

IVW
0.4%
IWF
1.1%

Basic Materials

IVW
0.4%
IWF
0.3%

Energy

IVW
0.1%
IWF
0.4%

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

IVW vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IVW
IVW Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
IVW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IVW Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
IVW Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
IVW Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
IVW Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank

IWF
IWF Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
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.

IVW vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF (IVW) 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.


IVWIWFDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.29

1.84

+0.45

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.05

2.50

+0.56

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.32

+0.07

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.70

1.78

+0.92

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

11.16

5.96

+5.20

IVW vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IVW Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is comparable to the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IVW 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IVWIWFDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.29

1.84

+0.45

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.78

0.75

+0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.89

0.89

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.46

0.40

+0.06

Drawdowns

IVW vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IVW drawdown since its inception was -57.33%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IVW and IWF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IVWIWFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-57.33%

-64.25%

+6.92%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.75%

-16.27%

+2.52%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.15%

-23.36%

+1.21%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.72%

-32.72%

0.00%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.72%

-32.72%

0.00%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.15%

-0.37%

+0.22%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.62%

-22.09%

+4.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.32%

4.86%

-1.54%

Volatility

IVW vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF (IVW) has a higher volatility of 4.11% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) at 3.26%. This indicates that IVW'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IVWIWFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.11%

3.26%

+0.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.34%

11.58%

+0.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.84%

15.39%

+0.45%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.16%

21.39%

-0.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.62%

20.97%

-0.35%

IVW vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IVW has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than IWF'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

IVW vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

IVW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, more than IWF's 0.33% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IVW
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
0.35%0.40%0.43%1.03%0.92%0.46%0.82%1.63%1.28%1.30%1.51%1.51%
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
0.33%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


With a correlation of 0.98, IVW and IWF 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.

IVW has higher volatility (4.11%) compared to IWF (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IVW dropped -57.33% vs IWF's -64.25%.

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.64% vs 18.18% for IVW. On fees, IVW is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 3.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.64% return vs 18.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IVW is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWF.

IVW has the higher dividend yield at 0.35%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

IVW tracks S&P 500/Citigroup Growth Index, while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IVW and 0.19% for IWF.

IVW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.84), 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 IVW and IWF

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