IWF vs. CZA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while CZA is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 18.49%/yr vs 10.10%/yr for CZA. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CZA.

Performance

IWF vs. CZA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 7.11% return, which is significantly higher than CZA's 5.97% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed CZA with an annualized return of 18.49%, while CZA has yielded a comparatively lower 10.10% annualized return.

IWF

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 5.68%
• YTD: 7.11%
• 6M: 6.51%
• 1Y: 25.60%
• 3Y*: 24.80%
• 5Y*: 15.24%
• 10Y*: 18.49%

CZA

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 1.90%
• YTD: 5.97%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 13.18%
• 3Y*: 12.55%
• 5Y*: 6.64%
• 10Y*: 10.10%

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

IWF vs. CZA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	7.11%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	27.43%	38.25%	35.86%	-1.67%	29.95%
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	5.97%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	27.42%	0.35%	32.27%	-8.89%	21.90%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and CZA is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2007	0.66

Over the past year, the correlation between IWF and CZA has dropped to 0.43 - well below their long-term average of 0.66, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IWF vs. CZA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWF	CZA
Technology	53.2%	10.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.7%	6.2%
Communication Services	12.3%	-
Healthcare	7.0%	12.6%
Industrials	5.0%	16.0%
Financial Services	4.9%	23.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	2.9%
Utilities	1.1%	10.6%
Real Estate	0.4%	10.5%
Energy	0.4%	0.8%
Basic Materials	0.3%	4.2%

Return for Risk

IWF vs. CZA — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 40
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 34

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 30
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 27
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

IWF vs. CZA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA). 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.

	IWF	CZA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.04	+0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.29	1.59	+0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.18	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.58	1.44	+0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.28	5.48	-0.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWF vs. CZA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is higher than the CZA Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and CZA, 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

	IWF	CZA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.67	1.04	+0.63
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	0.41	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.88	0.53	+0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.48	-0.08

Drawdowns

IWF vs. CZA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than CZA's maximum drawdown of -53.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and CZA.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWF	CZA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.25%	-53.20%	-11.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.27%	-9.21%	-7.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.36%	-18.92%	-4.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.72%	-18.92%	-13.80%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.72%	-46.18%	+13.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.66%	-0.78%	-0.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.08%	-6.88%	-15.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.86%	2.41%	+2.45%

Volatility

IWF vs. CZA - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 3.61% compared to Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) at 3.13%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CZA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWF	CZA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.61%	3.13%	+0.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.66%	9.30%	+2.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.44%	12.78%	+2.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.40%	16.14%	+5.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.97%	19.28%	+1.69%

IWF vs. CZA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than CZA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWF vs. CZA - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than CZA's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.47%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
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

Can I hold both IWF and CZA in my portfolio?

IWF and CZA have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWF or CZA?

IWF has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to CZA (3.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs CZA's -53.20%.

Which ETF is better, IWF or CZA?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.49% vs 10.10% for CZA. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, CZA has been the lower-risk option at 3.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWF or CZA?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 10.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWF or CZA?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWF or CZA?

CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IWF and CZA?

IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while CZA is Mid Cap Blend Equities. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.69% for CZA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.04), 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.