IWF vs. ILCG

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds from iShares - IWF tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index while ILCG tracks the Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 17.73%/yr vs 17.54%/yr for ILCG. Their 0.97 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

IWF vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 4.89% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 12.63% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWF having a 17.73% annualized return and ILCG not far behind at 17.54%.

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%

ILCG

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 1.12%
• 6M: 15.76%
• YTD: 12.63%
• 1Y: 17.95%
• 3Y*: 24.17%
• 5Y*: 12.23%
• 10Y*: 17.54%
• ALL TIME*: 11.74%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	$5.25M	$6.59M	$9.50M
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	$429.61M	$538.46M	$628.33M

IWF vs. ILCG - 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%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	12.63%	16.71%	32.82%	40.41%	-31.75%	24.33%	38.56%	33.22%	2.06%	30.57%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and ILCG is 0.96 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.98
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.99
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2004	0.97

The correlation between IWF and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWF vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWF	ILCG
Technology	54.2%	54.1%
Communication Services	16.2%	9.7%
Industrials	9.0%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	9.2%
Healthcare	5.4%	5.3%
Financial Services	4.3%	4.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	1.6%
Energy	0.5%	0.7%
Real Estate	0.4%	1.5%
Utilities	0.3%	0.9%
Basic Materials	0.3%	1.4%

Return for Risk

IWF vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 27
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 27
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 27

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 33
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 32
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 34

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IWF vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.79	0.96	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.20	1.40	-0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.18	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.85	1.15	-0.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.53	3.65	-1.12

IWF vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 0.79, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 0.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and ILCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IWF vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than ILCG's maximum drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWF	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.25%	-52.98%	-11.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.27%	-15.65%	-0.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.36%	-23.10%	-0.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.72%	-35.38%	+2.66%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.72%	-35.38%	+2.66%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.71%	-2.62%	-1.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.97%	-8.19%	-13.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.47%	4.93%	+0.54%

Volatility

IWF vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 7.01% compared to iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) at 6.66%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWF	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.01%	6.66%	+0.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.34%	15.75%	-1.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.63%	18.81%	-1.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.77%	22.42%	-0.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.13%	21.72%	-0.59%

IWF vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% 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. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than ILCG's 0.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.41%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%
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

Can I hold both IWF and ILCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, IWF and ILCG 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 ILCG?

IWF has higher volatility (7.01%) compared to ILCG (6.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, IWF or ILCG?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 17.73% vs 17.54% for ILCG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 6.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWF or ILCG?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 17.73% return vs 17.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWF or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IWF.

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

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.41%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IWF and ILCG?

IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while ILCG tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.96 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.