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

Performance

IWF vs. MFUS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS). 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 MFUS's 16.37% 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%

MFUS

1D
0.03%
1M
5.72%
YTD
16.37%
6M
16.58%
1Y
28.04%
3Y*
22.25%
5Y*
12.82%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWF vs. MFUS - 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%9.66%
MFUS
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF
16.37%16.02%20.17%12.19%-5.82%24.10%10.64%26.17%-7.30%11.20%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and MFUS is 0.60, 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

0.60

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

0.69

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

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 7, 2017

0.75

The correlation between IWF and MFUS shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.75 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWF vs. MFUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWF
MFUS

Technology

53.2%
21.8%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
10.6%

Communication Services

12.3%
5.3%

Healthcare

7.0%
13.5%

Industrials

5.0%
12.6%

Financial Services

4.9%
12.6%

Consumer Defensive

2.5%
10.3%

Utilities

1.1%
1.7%

Real Estate

0.4%
1.8%

Energy

0.4%
7.0%

Basic Materials

0.3%
2.8%

Technology

IWF
53.2%
MFUS
21.8%

Consumer Cyclical

IWF
12.7%
MFUS
10.6%

Communication Services

IWF
12.3%
MFUS
5.3%

Healthcare

IWF
7.0%
MFUS
13.5%

Industrials

IWF
5.0%
MFUS
12.6%

Financial Services

IWF
4.9%
MFUS
12.6%

Consumer Defensive

IWF
2.5%
MFUS
10.3%

Utilities

IWF
1.1%
MFUS
1.7%

Real Estate

IWF
0.4%
MFUS
1.8%

Energy

IWF
0.4%
MFUS
7.0%

Basic Materials

IWF
0.3%
MFUS
2.8%

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. MFUS — 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

MFUS
MFUS Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
MFUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MFUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
MFUS Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
MFUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
MFUS Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
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. MFUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS). 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.


IWFMFUSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.96

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.49

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.47

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.58

4.41

-2.83

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.28

18.13

-12.84

IWF vs. MFUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is lower than the MFUS Sharpe Ratio of 2.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and MFUS, 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


IWFMFUSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.67

2.63

-0.96

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.72

0.86

-0.14

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

0.79

-0.39

Drawdowns

IWF vs. MFUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than MFUS's maximum drawdown of -35.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and MFUS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWFMFUSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.25%

-35.21%

-29.04%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.27%

-6.39%

-9.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.36%

-15.39%

-7.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.72%

-18.22%

-14.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.72%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.66%

0.00%

-1.66%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.08%

-4.00%

-18.08%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.86%

1.55%

+3.31%

Volatility

IWF vs. MFUS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 3.61% compared to PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS) at 3.19%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWFMFUSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.61%

3.19%

+0.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.66%

8.22%

+3.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.44%

10.72%

+4.72%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.40%

15.03%

+6.37%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.97%

17.35%

+3.62%

IWF vs. MFUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than MFUS's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

IWF vs. MFUS - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than MFUS's 1.36% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
MFUS
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF
1.36%1.54%1.45%1.96%2.07%1.35%1.72%1.89%1.69%1.01%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWF and MFUS have a correlation of 0.60, 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 MFUS (3.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs MFUS's -35.21%.

On 5-year performance, IWF leads with 15.24% vs 12.82% for MFUS. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, MFUS has been the lower-risk option at 3.19%. 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 12.82%. 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 0.30% for MFUS.

MFUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.36%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while MFUS tracks RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Index​. They also come from different issuers: iShares and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.30% for MFUS.

MFUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 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 MFUS

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