IWF vs. SCHG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - IWF tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index while SCHG tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 18.49%/yr vs 18.77%/yr for SCHG. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.

Performance

IWF vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 7.11% return, which is significantly higher than SCHG's 6.42% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWF having a 18.49% annualized return and SCHG not far ahead at 18.77%.

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%

SCHG

• 1D: -1.23%
• 1M: 4.81%
• YTD: 6.42%
• 6M: 5.81%
• 1Y: 24.64%
• 3Y*: 25.02%
• 5Y*: 15.59%
• 10Y*: 18.77%

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

IWF vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	6.42%	17.50%	34.95%	50.10%	-31.80%	28.11%	39.14%	36.02%	-1.36%	28.05%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and SCHG is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.99
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.99
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.99
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.99
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2009	0.99

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

IWF vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWF	SCHG
Technology	53.2%	46.3%
Consumer Cyclical	12.7%	12.7%
Communication Services	12.3%	16.0%
Healthcare	7.0%	7.7%
Industrials	5.0%	5.8%
Financial Services	4.9%	6.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	1.7%
Utilities	1.1%	0.4%
Real Estate	0.4%	0.5%
Energy	0.4%	0.8%
Basic Materials	0.3%	1.4%

Return for Risk

IWF vs. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 40
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 34

SCHG

SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 39
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 43
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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	SCHG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.60	+0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.29	2.18	+0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.28	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.58	1.51	+0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.28	5.04	+0.24
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. SCHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is comparable to the SCHG Sharpe Ratio of 1.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and SCHG, 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	SCHG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.67	1.60	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	0.70	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.88	0.87	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.84	-0.45

Drawdowns

IWF vs. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than SCHG's maximum drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and SCHG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWF	SCHG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.25%	-34.59%	-29.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.27%	-16.41%	+0.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.36%	-23.39%	+0.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.72%	-34.59%	+1.87%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.72%	-34.59%	+1.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.66%	-1.78%	+0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.08%	-5.20%	-16.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.86%	4.90%	-0.04%

Volatility

IWF vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) have volatilities of 3.61% and 3.61%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWF	SCHG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.61%	3.61%	0.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.66%	11.62%	+0.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.44%	15.50%	-0.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.40%	22.27%	-0.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.97%	21.55%	-0.58%

IWF vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than SCHG's 0.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.36%	0.36%	0.39%	0.46%	0.55%	0.42%	0.52%	0.82%	1.27%	1.01%	1.04%	1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWF and SCHG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, IWF and SCHG 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 SCHG?

SCHG has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to IWF (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs SCHG's -34.59%.

Which ETF is better, IWF or SCHG?

On 10-year performance, SCHG leads with 18.77% vs 18.49% for IWF. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWF or SCHG?

Over the 10-year period, SCHG has performed better with a 18.77% return vs 18.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWF or SCHG?

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

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

SCHG has the higher dividend yield at 0.36%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IWF and SCHG?

IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while SCHG tracks Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.04% for SCHG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.60), 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.