PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IWF vs. FVAL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IWF vs. FVAL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Fidelity Value Factor ETF (FVAL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 7.11% return, which is significantly lower than FVAL's 11.14% 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%

FVAL

1D
-0.59%
1M
5.54%
YTD
11.14%
6M
12.79%
1Y
31.42%
3Y*
20.96%
5Y*
12.53%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWF vs. FVAL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
FVAL
Fidelity Value Factor ETF
11.14%19.56%18.05%23.10%-14.40%30.33%9.08%30.33%-7.87%22.49%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and FVAL is 0.82, 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

0.82

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.82

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.86

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2016

0.83

The correlation between IWF and FVAL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWF vs. FVAL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWF
FVAL

Technology

53.2%
32.6%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
9.9%

Communication Services

12.3%
9.4%

Healthcare

7.0%
9.3%

Industrials

5.0%
8.1%

Financial Services

4.9%
11.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.5%
4.3%

Utilities

1.1%
1.8%

Real Estate

0.4%
2.4%

Energy

0.4%
4.1%

Basic Materials

0.3%
1.9%

Technology

IWF
53.2%
FVAL
32.6%

Consumer Cyclical

IWF
12.7%
FVAL
9.9%

Communication Services

IWF
12.3%
FVAL
9.4%

Healthcare

IWF
7.0%
FVAL
9.3%

Industrials

IWF
5.0%
FVAL
8.1%

Financial Services

IWF
4.9%
FVAL
11.4%

Consumer Defensive

IWF
2.5%
FVAL
4.3%

Utilities

IWF
1.1%
FVAL
1.8%

Real Estate

IWF
0.4%
FVAL
2.4%

Energy

IWF
0.4%
FVAL
4.1%

Basic Materials

IWF
0.3%
FVAL
1.9%

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. FVAL — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF
IWF Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4545
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
Martin Ratio Rank

FVAL
FVAL Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
FVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
FVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
FVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
FVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
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. FVAL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Fidelity Value Factor ETF (FVAL). 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.


IWFFVALDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.07

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.49

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.58

3.54

-1.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.28

15.80

-10.52

IWF vs. FVAL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is lower than the FVAL Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and FVAL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IWFFVALDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.67

2.73

-1.07

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.72

0.76

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.88

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.40

0.81

-0.41

Drawdowns

IWF vs. FVAL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than FVAL's maximum drawdown of -37.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and FVAL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWFFVALDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.25%

-37.26%

-26.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.27%

-8.92%

-7.35%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.36%

-18.39%

-4.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.72%

-23.42%

-9.30%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.72%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.66%

-0.75%

-0.91%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.08%

-4.58%

-17.50%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.86%

1.99%

+2.87%

Volatility

IWF vs. FVAL - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 3.61% compared to Fidelity Value Factor ETF (FVAL) at 2.70%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FVAL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWFFVALDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.61%

2.70%

+0.91%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.66%

8.64%

+3.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.44%

11.56%

+3.88%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.40%

16.48%

+4.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.97%

18.11%

+2.86%

IWF vs. FVAL - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than FVAL's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

IWF vs. FVAL - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than FVAL's 1.49% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FVAL
Fidelity Value Factor ETF
1.49%1.61%1.60%1.69%1.79%1.41%1.61%1.77%2.06%1.62%0.45%0.00%
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


IWF and FVAL have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWF has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to FVAL (2.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs FVAL's -37.26%.

On 5-year performance, IWF leads with 15.24% vs 12.53% for FVAL. On fees, FVAL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FVAL has been the lower-risk option at 2.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IWF has performed better with a 15.24% return vs 12.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FVAL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IWF.

FVAL has the higher dividend yield at 1.49%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while FVAL is Large Cap Value Equities. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while FVAL tracks Fidelity U.S. Value Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.15% for FVAL.

FVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 1.67), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWF and FVAL

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