IWF vs. ILCB

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and ILCB (iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds from iShares - IWF tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index while ILCB tracks the Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 18.47%/yr vs 14.98%/yr for ILCB. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for ILCB.

Performance

IWF vs. ILCB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF (ILCB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 7.28% return, which is significantly lower than ILCB's 11.56% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed ILCB with an annualized return of 18.47%, while ILCB has yielded a comparatively lower 14.98% annualized return.

IWF

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 5.33%
• YTD: 7.28%
• 6M: 6.46%
• 1Y: 25.41%
• 3Y*: 24.91%
• 5Y*: 15.28%
• 10Y*: 18.47%

ILCB

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 4.85%
• YTD: 11.56%
• 6M: 11.45%
• 1Y: 28.46%
• 3Y*: 22.90%
• 5Y*: 13.55%
• 10Y*: 14.98%

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

IWF vs. ILCB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	7.28%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	27.43%	38.25%	35.86%	-1.67%	29.95%
ILCB iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF	11.56%	17.70%	24.96%	26.91%	-19.48%	24.07%	19.40%	32.68%	-8.51%	22.09%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and ILCB is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 6, 2004	0.92

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

IWF vs. ILCB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWF	ILCB
Technology	53.2%	35.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.7%	10.1%
Communication Services	12.3%	11.4%
Healthcare	7.0%	8.6%
Industrials	5.0%	8.6%
Financial Services	4.9%	11.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	4.8%
Utilities	1.1%	2.3%
Real Estate	0.4%	1.8%
Energy	0.4%	3.5%
Basic Materials	0.3%	1.8%

Return for Risk

IWF vs. ILCB — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 42
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 47
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 35

ILCB

ILCB Risk / Return Rank: 72
ILCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
ILCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
ILCB Omega Ratio Rank: 73
ILCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
ILCB Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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. ILCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF (ILCB). 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	ILCB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.65	2.38	-0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	3.24	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.43	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.57	3.14	-1.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.24	14.46	-9.22
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. ILCB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is lower than the ILCB Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and ILCB, 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	ILCB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.65	2.38	-0.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	0.79	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.88	0.83	+0.06
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.64	-0.24

Drawdowns

IWF vs. ILCB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than ILCB's maximum drawdown of -51.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and ILCB.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWF	ILCB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.25%	-51.53%	-12.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.27%	-9.09%	-7.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.36%	-19.05%	-4.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.72%	-25.47%	-7.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.72%	-35.30%	+2.58%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.51%	-0.27%	-1.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.08%	-6.23%	-15.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.86%	1.97%	+2.89%

Volatility

IWF vs. ILCB - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 3.60% compared to iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF (ILCB) at 2.83%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWF	ILCB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.60%	2.83%	+0.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.65%	9.11%	+2.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.43%	12.01%	+3.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.39%	17.12%	+4.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.96%	18.16%	+2.80%

IWF vs. ILCB - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCB's 0.03% 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. ILCB - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than ILCB's 0.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ILCB iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF	0.96%	1.11%	1.19%	1.43%	1.65%	1.16%	1.26%	2.25%	2.17%	1.81%	1.97%	2.44%
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 ILCB in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, IWF and ILCB 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, IWF or ILCB?

IWF has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to ILCB (2.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs ILCB's -51.53%.

Which ETF is better, IWF or ILCB?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.47% vs 14.98% for ILCB. On fees, ILCB is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, ILCB has been the lower-risk option at 2.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWF or ILCB?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.47% return vs 14.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWF or ILCB?

ILCB is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IWF.

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

ILCB has the higher dividend yield at 0.96%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IWF and ILCB?

IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while ILCB tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.03% for ILCB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 1.65), 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.