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

Performance

IWF vs. IWD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF (IWD). 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 4.29% return, which is significantly lower than IWD's 15.94% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed IWD with an annualized return of 18.31%, while IWD has yielded a comparatively lower 11.41% annualized return.


IWF

1D
1.31%
1M
-1.09%
YTD
4.29%
6M
4.25%
1Y
21.82%
3Y*
22.46%
5Y*
14.10%
10Y*
18.31%

IWD

1D
0.75%
1M
3.91%
YTD
15.94%
6M
16.19%
1Y
30.14%
3Y*
17.81%
5Y*
11.56%
10Y*
11.41%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWF vs. IWD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
4.29%18.33%33.12%42.59%-29.31%27.43%38.25%35.86%-1.67%29.95%
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
15.94%15.68%14.17%11.34%-7.75%24.95%2.73%26.12%-8.45%13.45%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and IWD is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.55

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

0.55

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

0.67

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2000

0.79

Over the past year, the correlation between IWF and IWD has dropped to 0.55 - well below their long-term average of 0.79, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IWF vs. IWD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWF
IWD

Technology

53.9%
18.6%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
7.1%

Communication Services

12.4%
8.1%

Healthcare

6.9%
10.6%

Industrials

5.4%
12.5%

Financial Services

5.0%
18.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
6.7%

Real Estate

0.4%
3.9%

Energy

0.3%
6.3%

Basic Materials

0.3%
3.7%

Utilities

0.3%
4.0%

Technology

IWF
53.9%
IWD
18.6%

Consumer Cyclical

IWF
12.7%
IWD
7.1%

Communication Services

IWF
12.4%
IWD
8.1%

Healthcare

IWF
6.9%
IWD
10.6%

Industrials

IWF
5.4%
IWD
12.5%

Financial Services

IWF
5.0%
IWD
18.4%

Consumer Defensive

IWF
2.4%
IWD
6.7%

Real Estate

IWF
0.4%
IWD
3.9%

Energy

IWF
0.3%
IWD
6.3%

Basic Materials

IWF
0.3%
IWD
3.7%

Utilities

IWF
0.3%
IWD
4.0%

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. IWD — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF
IWF Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank

IWD
IWD Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
IWD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWD Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWD Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
IWD Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWD Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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. IWD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


IWFIWDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.35

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.88

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.49

-0.25

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.35

4.46

-3.12

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.41

18.52

-14.11

IWF vs. IWD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the IWD Sharpe Ratio of 2.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and IWD, 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...

Drawdowns

IWF vs. IWD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than IWD's maximum drawdown of -60.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and IWD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWFIWDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.25%

-60.10%

-4.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.27%

-6.79%

-9.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.36%

-15.71%

-7.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.72%

-19.04%

-13.68%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.72%

-38.51%

+5.79%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.25%

-0.66%

-3.59%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.05%

-8.64%

-13.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.96%

1.63%

+3.33%

Volatility

IWF vs. IWD - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 5.94% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF (IWD) at 3.99%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWFIWDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.94%

3.99%

+1.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.68%

8.59%

+4.09%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.13%

11.20%

+4.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.50%

14.85%

+6.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.03%

17.32%

+3.71%

IWF vs. IWD - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both IWF and IWD have an expense ratio of 0.18%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

IWF vs. IWD - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than IWD's 1.45% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
1.45%1.69%1.87%2.02%2.15%1.62%2.05%2.45%2.71%2.09%2.25%2.47%
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 IWD have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWF has higher volatility (5.94%) compared to IWD (3.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs IWD's -60.10%.

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.31% vs 11.41% for IWD. Both ETFs have the same 0.18% expense ratio. On volatility, IWD has been the lower-risk option at 3.99%. 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 18.31% return vs 11.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWF and IWD have the same expense ratio: 0.18% per year.

IWD has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.

IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IWD is Large Cap Value Equities. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while IWD tracks Russell 1000 Value Index.

IWD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.70 vs 1.36), 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 IWD

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