IWF vs. SPIT
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and SPIT (F/m Emerald Special Situations ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWF is passively managed, while SPIT is actively managed. Their 0.74 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for SPIT.
Performance
IWF vs. SPIT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 2.33% return, which is significantly lower than SPIT's 26.92% return.
IWF
- 1D
- 2.16%
- 1M
- -0.24%
- 6M
- 3.60%
- YTD
- 2.33%
- 1Y
- 12.35%
- 3Y*
- 21.10%
- 5Y*
- 12.02%
- 10Y*
- 17.44%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.31%
SPIT
- 1D
- 1.99%
- 1M
- -3.14%
- 6M
- 17.82%
- YTD
- 26.92%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $458.24M | $549.09M | $635.49M | |
| $212.31K | $271.42K | $193.26K |
IWF vs. SPIT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 2.33% | 0.82% |
SPIT F/m Emerald Special Situations ETF | 26.92% | 5.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and SPIT is 0.74, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2025 | 0.74 |
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. SPIT — Risk / Return Rank
IWF
SPIT
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IWF vs. SPIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and F/m Emerald Special Situations ETF (SPIT). 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 | SPIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.76 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.27 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWF vs. SPIT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than SPIT's maximum drawdown of -12.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and SPIT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWF | SPIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.25% | -12.49% | -51.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.27% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.36% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.72% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.72% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.05% | -5.71% | -0.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -21.98% | -2.87% | -19.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.46% | — | — |
Volatility
IWF vs. SPIT - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWF | SPIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.73% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.19% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.54% | 26.61% | -9.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.73% | 26.61% | -4.88% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.12% | 26.61% | -5.49% |
IWF vs. SPIT - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than SPIT's 0.89% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWF vs. SPIT - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than SPIT's 5.66% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 0.36% | 0.36% | 0.46% | 0.67% | 0.91% | 0.49% | 0.66% | 0.99% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.43% | 1.37% |
SPIT F/m Emerald Special Situations ETF | 5.66% | 7.18% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWF and SPIT have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for SPIT.
SPIT has the higher dividend yield at 5.66%, compared with 0.36% for IWF.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.89% for SPIT.
Find the right allocation for IWF and SPIT
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