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

Performance

IWF vs. SPMO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF (SPMO). 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 2.87% return, which is significantly lower than SPMO's 28.15% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has underperformed SPMO with an annualized return of 18.17%, while SPMO has yielded a comparatively higher 20.86% annualized return.


IWF

1D
0.03%
1M
-2.17%
YTD
2.87%
6M
3.39%
1Y
18.87%
3Y*
22.33%
5Y*
13.90%
10Y*
18.17%

SPMO

1D
1.26%
1M
4.23%
YTD
28.15%
6M
28.70%
1Y
43.47%
3Y*
41.53%
5Y*
23.50%
10Y*
20.86%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWF vs. SPMO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
2.87%18.33%33.12%42.59%-29.31%27.43%38.25%35.86%-1.67%29.95%
SPMO
Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF
28.15%26.58%45.82%17.56%-10.45%22.64%28.25%25.93%-0.92%27.76%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and SPMO is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.84

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

0.85

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

0.82

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

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 12, 2015

0.79

The correlation between IWF and SPMO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWF vs. SPMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWF
SPMO

Technology

53.2%
54.8%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
1.3%

Communication Services

12.3%
8.7%

Healthcare

7.0%
6.2%

Industrials

5.0%
10.9%

Financial Services

4.9%
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

2.5%
4.0%

Utilities

1.1%
2.5%

Real Estate

0.4%
0.9%

Energy

0.4%
3.1%

Basic Materials

0.3%
1.6%

Technology

IWF
53.2%
SPMO
54.8%

Consumer Cyclical

IWF
12.7%
SPMO
1.3%

Communication Services

IWF
12.3%
SPMO
8.7%

Healthcare

IWF
7.0%
SPMO
6.2%

Industrials

IWF
5.0%
SPMO
10.9%

Financial Services

IWF
4.9%
SPMO
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

IWF
2.5%
SPMO
4.0%

Utilities

IWF
1.1%
SPMO
2.5%

Real Estate

IWF
0.4%
SPMO
0.9%

Energy

IWF
0.4%
SPMO
3.1%

Basic Materials

IWF
0.3%
SPMO
1.6%

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. SPMO — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF
IWF Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

SPMO
SPMO Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
SPMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SPMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
SPMO Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
SPMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
SPMO Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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. SPMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF (SPMO). 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.


IWFSPMODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.41

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.16

3.44

-2.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.83

13.01

-9.17

IWF vs. SPMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is lower than the SPMO Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and SPMO, 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. SPMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than SPMO's maximum drawdown of -30.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and SPMO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWFSPMODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.25%

-30.95%

-33.30%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.27%

-12.70%

-3.57%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.36%

-20.13%

-3.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.72%

-22.74%

-9.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.72%

-30.95%

-1.77%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.56%

-1.68%

-3.88%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.06%

-4.60%

-17.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.93%

3.35%

+1.58%

Volatility

IWF vs. SPMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is 5.36%, while Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF (SPMO) has a volatility of 10.29%. This indicates that IWF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SPMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWFSPMODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.36%

10.29%

-4.93%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.40%

16.73%

-4.33%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.95%

19.48%

-3.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.46%

19.65%

+1.81%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.00%

20.48%

+0.52%

IWF vs. SPMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than SPMO's 0.13% 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. SPMO - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than SPMO's 0.67% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
SPMO
Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF
0.67%0.73%0.48%1.63%1.66%0.52%1.27%1.39%1.05%0.77%1.94%0.36%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWF and SPMO have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SPMO has higher volatility (10.29%) compared to IWF (5.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs SPMO's -30.95%.

On 10-year performance, SPMO leads with 20.86% vs 18.17% for IWF. On fees, SPMO is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 5.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, SPMO has performed better with a 20.86% return vs 18.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SPMO is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IWF.

SPMO has the higher dividend yield at 0.67%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.

IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while SPMO is Momentum. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while SPMO tracks S&P 500 Momentum Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.13% for SPMO.

SPMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.19), 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 SPMO

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