IWF vs. AAXJ
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and AAXJ (iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while AAXJ is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 18.17%/yr vs 10.34%/yr for AAXJ. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for AAXJ.
Performance
IWF vs. AAXJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 2.87% return, which is significantly lower than AAXJ's 26.46% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed AAXJ with an annualized return of 18.17%, while AAXJ has yielded a comparatively lower 10.34% annualized return.
IWF
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- -2.22%
- YTD
- 2.87%
- 6M
- 3.39%
- 1Y
- 20.40%
- 3Y*
- 22.33%
- 5Y*
- 13.90%
- 10Y*
- 18.17%
AAXJ
- 1D
- 0.46%
- 1M
- 4.42%
- YTD
- 26.46%
- 6M
- 29.76%
- 1Y
- 48.69%
- 3Y*
- 22.11%
- 5Y*
- 6.41%
- 10Y*
- 10.34%
IWF vs. AAXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 2.87% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 42.59% | -29.31% | 27.43% | 38.25% | 35.86% | -1.67% | 29.95% |
AAXJ iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF | 26.46% | 31.53% | 10.41% | 4.79% | -20.35% | -5.73% | 23.35% | 17.93% | -15.04% | 41.76% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and AAXJ is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.69 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.59 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.60 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.64 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 15, 2008 | 0.69 |
The correlation between IWF and AAXJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (3 years) to 0.69 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
IWF vs. AAXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IWF
AAXJ
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Healthcare
Industrials
Financial Services
Consumer Defensive
Real Estate
Energy
Basic Materials
Utilities
Technology
IWF
AAXJ
Consumer Cyclical
IWF
AAXJ
Communication Services
IWF
AAXJ
Healthcare
IWF
AAXJ
Industrials
IWF
AAXJ
Financial Services
IWF
AAXJ
Consumer Defensive
IWF
AAXJ
Real Estate
IWF
AAXJ
Energy
IWF
AAXJ
Basic Materials
IWF
AAXJ
Utilities
IWF
AAXJ
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
IWF vs. AAXJ — Risk / Return Rank
IWF
AAXJ
IWF vs. AAXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ). 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.
| IWF | AAXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.92 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.07 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.40 | -0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.16 | 3.41 | -2.25 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.83 | 12.55 | -8.71 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWF vs. AAXJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than AAXJ's maximum drawdown of -49.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and AAXJ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWF | AAXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.25% | -49.37% | -14.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.27% | -13.66% | -2.61% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.36% | -19.74% | -3.62% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.72% | -40.64% | +7.92% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.72% | -44.52% | +11.80% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.56% | -4.62% | -0.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.06% | -14.01% | -8.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.93% | 3.71% | +1.22% |
Volatility
IWF vs. AAXJ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is 5.36%, while iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ) has a volatility of 11.46%. This indicates that IWF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AAXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWF | AAXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.36% | 11.46% | -6.10% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.40% | 19.71% | -7.31% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.95% | 22.12% | -6.17% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.46% | 20.32% | +1.14% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.00% | 20.42% | +0.58% |
IWF vs. AAXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than AAXJ's 0.68% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWF vs. AAXJ - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than AAXJ's 1.43% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAXJ iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF | 1.43% | 1.81% | 1.86% | 1.95% | 1.74% | 2.21% | 1.06% | 1.83% | 2.10% | 1.99% | 1.77% | 2.44% |
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 0.35% | 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
IWF and AAXJ have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
AAXJ has higher volatility (11.46%) compared to IWF (5.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs AAXJ's -49.37%.
On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.17% vs 10.34% for AAXJ. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 5.36%. 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 18.17% return vs 10.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for AAXJ.
AAXJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.
IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while AAXJ is Asia Pacific Equities. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while AAXJ tracks MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.68% for AAXJ.
AAXJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.19), 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 IWF and AAXJ
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