IWB vs. XLG
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) and Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF (XLG).
IWB and XLG are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IWB is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Index. It was launched on May 15, 2000. XLG is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Russell Top 50 Index. It was launched on May 10, 2005. Both IWB and XLG are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: IWB or XLG.
Performance
IWB vs. XLG - Performance Comparison
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWB achieves a 24.59% return, which is significantly lower than XLG's 29.52% return. Over the past 10 years, IWB has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 12.84%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 14.82% annualized return.
IWB
24.59%
0.95%
11.98%
32.60%
15.04%
12.84%
XLG
29.52%
0.96%
13.06%
34.65%
18.05%
14.82%
Key characteristics
| IWB | XLG | |
|---|---|---|
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.67 | 2.38 |
| Sortino Ratio | 3.56 | 3.13 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.50 | 1.44 |
| Calmar Ratio | 3.90 | 3.10 |
| Martin Ratio | 17.36 | 12.88 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.89% | 2.72% |
| Daily Std Dev | 12.35% | 14.75% |
| Max Drawdown | -55.38% | -52.39% |
| Current Drawdown | -1.82% | -2.53% |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IWB vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWB has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than XLG's 0.20% 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%.
Correlation
The correlation between IWB and XLG is 0.95, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IWB vs. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) and Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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.
Dividends
IWB vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison
IWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.13%, more than XLG's 0.74% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWB iShares Russell 1000 ETF | 1.13% | 1.31% | 1.56% | 1.09% | 1.37% | 1.71% | 2.06% | 1.64% | 1.89% | 1.95% | 1.71% | 1.68% |
XLG Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF | 0.74% | 0.97% | 1.34% | 0.94% | 1.25% | 1.58% | 2.00% | 1.85% | 2.00% | 2.09% | 1.97% | 1.97% |
Drawdowns
IWB vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWB drawdown since its inception was -55.38%, which is greater than XLG's maximum drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWB and XLG. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IWB vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is 4.18%, while Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 4.92%. This indicates that IWB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.