IWF vs. DBE
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and DBE (Invesco DB Energy Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while DBE is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the DBIQ Optimum Yield Energy Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 17.73%/yr vs 11.73%/yr for DBE. Their 0.23 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.78%/yr for DBE.
Performance
IWF vs. DBE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 4.89% return, which is significantly lower than DBE's 63.53% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed DBE with an annualized return of 17.73%, while DBE has yielded a comparatively lower 11.73% annualized return.
IWF
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- 0.72%
- 6M
- 9.36%
- YTD
- 4.89%
- 1Y
- 13.84%
- 3Y*
- 22.10%
- 5Y*
- 12.50%
- 10Y*
- 17.73%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.41%
DBE
- 1D
- -0.24%
- 1M
- 9.43%
- 6M
- 46.31%
- YTD
- 63.53%
- 1Y
- 57.60%
- 3Y*
- 13.46%
- 5Y*
- 16.54%
- 10Y*
- 11.73%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.05%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.42M | $1.12M | $1.57M | |
| $429.61M | $538.46M | $628.33M |
IWF vs. DBE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 4.89% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 42.59% | -29.31% | 27.43% | 38.25% | 35.86% | -1.67% | 29.95% |
DBE Invesco DB Energy Fund | 63.53% | -2.17% | 2.96% | -12.14% | 33.77% | 57.56% | -25.91% | 19.72% | -12.95% | 5.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and DBE is -0.28, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.28 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.09 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.03 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.12 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2007 | 0.23 |
The correlation between IWF and DBE shifts across timeframes, from -0.28 (1 year) to 0.23 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. DBE — Risk / Return Rank
IWF
DBE
IWF vs. DBE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Invesco DB Energy Fund (DBE). 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 | DBE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.74 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.91 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.14 | 1.26 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.85 | 2.34 | -1.49 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.53 | 7.22 | -4.68 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWF vs. DBE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, smaller than the maximum DBE drawdown of -86.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and DBE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWF | DBE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.25% | -86.69% | +22.44% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.27% | -24.72% | +8.45% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.36% | -24.72% | +1.36% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.72% | -38.74% | +6.02% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.72% | -60.84% | +28.12% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.71% | -37.92% | +34.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -21.97% | -57.12% | +35.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.47% | 8.00% | -2.53% |
Volatility
IWF vs. DBE - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is 7.01%, while Invesco DB Energy Fund (DBE) has a volatility of 15.65%. This indicates that IWF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DBE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWF | DBE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.01% | 15.65% | -8.64% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.34% | 33.76% | -19.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.63% | 37.85% | -20.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.77% | 30.19% | -8.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.13% | 28.63% | -7.50% |
IWF vs. DBE - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than DBE's 0.78% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWF vs. DBE - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than DBE's 2.36% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBE Invesco DB Energy Fund | 2.36% | 3.86% | 6.32% | 3.87% | 0.75% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.79% | 1.67% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
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 DBE have a correlation of -0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
DBE has higher volatility (15.65%) compared to IWF (7.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs DBE's -86.69%.
On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 17.73% vs 11.73% for DBE. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 7.01%. 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 17.73% return vs 11.73%. 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 0.78% for DBE.
DBE has the higher dividend yield at 2.36%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.
IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while DBE is Oil & Gas. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while DBE tracks DBIQ Optimum Yield Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.78% for DBE.
DBE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs 0.79), 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 DBE
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