IWB vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWB (iShares Russell 1000 ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWB is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Index, while XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWB returned 15.17%/yr vs 17.27%/yr for XLG. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWB charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

IWB vs. XLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWB achieves a 10.54% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 7.57% return. Over the past 10 years, IWB has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 15.17%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 17.27% annualized return.

IWB

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 4.95%
• YTD: 10.54%
• 6M: 10.51%
• 1Y: 27.03%
• 3Y*: 22.02%
• 5Y*: 12.99%
• 10Y*: 15.17%

XLG

• 1D: -1.15%
• 1M: 4.22%
• YTD: 7.57%
• 6M: 7.32%
• 1Y: 28.54%
• 3Y*: 24.46%
• 5Y*: 16.24%
• 10Y*: 17.27%

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

IWB vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWB iShares Russell 1000 ETF	10.54%	17.18%	24.32%	26.39%	-19.19%	26.32%	20.77%	31.06%	-4.90%	21.52%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	7.57%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between IWB and XLG is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2005	0.95

The correlation between IWB and XLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWB vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWB	XLG
Technology	36.6%	43.9%
Financial Services	11.3%	9.6%
Communication Services	10.4%	17.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	11.3%
Industrials	8.6%	1.9%
Healthcare	8.6%	7.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	5.8%
Energy	3.3%	2.7%
Utilities	2.5%	-
Real Estate	2.1%	-
Basic Materials	1.9%	0.6%

Return for Risk

IWB vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWB

IWB Risk / Return Rank: 67
IWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
IWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IWB Omega Ratio Rank: 66
IWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
IWB Martin Ratio Rank: 73

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 56
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 61
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

IWB vs. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends 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.

	IWB	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	2.15	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.12	2.92	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.38	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.06	2.31	+0.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.09	8.66	+5.43
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWB vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWB Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWB and XLG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWB	XLG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.28	2.15	+0.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76	0.87	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.84	0.92	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.62	-0.17

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWB	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.38%	-52.39%	-2.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.86%	-12.41%	+3.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.09%	-20.70%	+1.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.20%	-28.02%	+2.82%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.60%	-30.46%	-4.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.71%	-1.44%	+0.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.86%	-7.64%	-3.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.92%	3.30%	-1.38%

Volatility

IWB vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is 2.88%, while Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 3.19%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	IWB	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.88%	3.19%	-0.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.97%	9.80%	-0.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.93%	13.33%	-1.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.10%	18.68%	-1.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.14%	18.84%	-0.70%

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%.

Dividends

IWB vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

IWB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, more than XLG's 0.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWB iShares Russell 1000 ETF	0.91%	1.00%	1.14%	1.31%	1.56%	1.09%	1.37%	1.71%	2.06%	1.64%	1.89%	1.95%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.60%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWB and XLG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, IWB and XLG 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.

Which is riskier, IWB or XLG?

XLG has higher volatility (3.19%) compared to IWB (2.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWB dropped -55.38% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, IWB or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 17.27% vs 15.17% for IWB. On fees, IWB is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, IWB has been the lower-risk option at 2.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWB or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.27% return vs 15.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWB or XLG?

IWB is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for XLG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWB or XLG?

IWB has the higher dividend yield at 0.91%, compared with 0.60% for XLG.

What is the main difference between IWB and XLG?

IWB is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. IWB tracks Russell 1000 Index, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWB and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 2.15), 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.