IWB vs. IAU
IWB (iShares Russell 1000 ETF) and IAU (iShares Gold Trust) are both exchange-traded funds - IWB is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Index, while IAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWB returned 14.80%/yr vs 11.37%/yr for IAU. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWB charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IAU.
Performance
IWB vs. IAU - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWB achieves a 10.28% return, which is significantly higher than IAU's -7.29% return. Over the past 10 years, IWB has outperformed IAU with an annualized return of 14.80%, while IAU has yielded a comparatively lower 11.37% annualized return.
IWB
- 1D
- -0.75%
- 1M
- 1.30%
- 6M
- 8.04%
- YTD
- 10.28%
- 1Y
- 20.86%
- 3Y*
- 19.75%
- 5Y*
- 12.22%
- 10Y*
- 14.80%
IAU
- 1D
- -2.60%
- 1M
- -4.98%
- 6M
- -13.00%
- YTD
- -7.29%
- 1Y
- 18.88%
- 3Y*
- 26.67%
- 5Y*
- 16.68%
- 10Y*
- 11.37%
IWB vs. IAU - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWB iShares Russell 1000 ETF | 10.28% | 17.18% | 24.32% | 26.39% | -19.19% | 26.32% | 20.77% | 31.06% | -4.90% | 21.52% |
IAU iShares Gold Trust | -7.29% | 63.95% | 26.85% | 12.84% | -0.63% | -4.00% | 25.03% | 17.98% | -1.76% | 12.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWB and IAU is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.13 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.07 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 28, 2005 | 0.07 |
Over the past year, IWB and IAU have become more correlated (0.30) than their long-term average of 0.07, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
IWB vs. IAU — Risk / Return Rank
IWB
IAU
IWB vs. IAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU). 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.
| IWB | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.98 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.15 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.36 | 0.72 | +1.64 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.29 | 1.77 | +8.52 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWB vs. IAU - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWB drawdown since its inception was -55.38%, which is greater than IAU's maximum drawdown of -45.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWB and IAU.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWB | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.38% | -45.14% | -10.24% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.86% | -26.17% | +17.31% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.09% | -26.17% | +7.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.20% | -26.17% | +0.97% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -34.60% | -26.17% | -8.43% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.94% | -25.91% | +24.97% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.82% | -16.00% | +5.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.03% | 10.66% | -8.63% |
Volatility
IWB vs. IAU - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is 4.08%, while iShares Gold Trust (IAU) has a volatility of 7.54%. This indicates that IWB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWB | IAU | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.08% | 7.54% | -3.46% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.99% | 24.02% | -14.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.61% | 27.75% | -15.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.21% | 18.33% | -1.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.12% | 16.04% | +2.08% |
IWB vs. IAU - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWB has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IAU's 0.25% 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
IWB vs. IAU - Dividend Comparison
IWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, while IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IAU iShares Gold Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWB iShares Russell 1000 ETF | 0.92% | 1.00% | 1.14% | 1.31% | 1.56% | 1.09% | 1.37% | 1.71% | 2.06% | 1.64% | 1.89% | 1.95% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWB and IAU have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IAU has higher volatility (7.54%) compared to IWB (4.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWB dropped -55.38% vs IAU's -45.14%.
On 10-year performance, IWB leads with 14.80% vs 11.37% for IAU. On fees, IWB is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, IWB has been the lower-risk option at 4.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, IWB has performed better with a 14.80% return vs 11.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWB is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for IAU.
IWB has the higher dividend yield at 0.92%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.
IWB is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while IAU is Gold. IWB tracks Russell 1000 Index, while IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWB and 0.25% for IAU.
IWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 0.68), 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 IWB and IAU
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