IWF vs. TIP
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and TIP (iShares TIPS Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while TIP is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury Inflation Linked Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 18.15%/yr vs 2.50%/yr for TIP. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.18% expense ratio.
Performance
IWF vs. TIP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 2.83% return, which is significantly higher than TIP's 1.39% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed TIP with an annualized return of 18.15%, while TIP has yielded a comparatively lower 2.50% annualized return.
IWF
- 1D
- 1.57%
- 1M
- -1.44%
- YTD
- 2.83%
- 6M
- 1.71%
- 1Y
- 19.30%
- 3Y*
- 22.57%
- 5Y*
- 13.90%
- 10Y*
- 18.15%
TIP
- 1D
- 0.36%
- 1M
- -0.22%
- YTD
- 1.39%
- 6M
- 1.25%
- 1Y
- 4.90%
- 3Y*
- 3.82%
- 5Y*
- 0.91%
- 10Y*
- 2.50%
IWF vs. TIP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 2.83% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 42.59% | -29.31% | 27.43% | 38.25% | 35.86% | -1.67% | 29.95% |
TIP iShares TIPS Bond ETF | 1.39% | 6.77% | 1.65% | 3.80% | -12.26% | 5.68% | 10.84% | 8.35% | -1.42% | 2.92% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and TIP is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2003 | -0.08 |
The correlation between IWF and TIP shifts across timeframes, from -0.08 (all time) to 0.18 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. TIP — Risk / Return Rank
IWF
TIP
IWF vs. TIP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares TIPS Bond ETF (TIP). 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 | TIP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.24 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.54 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.26 | -0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.19 | 2.49 | -1.30 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.93 | 7.44 | -3.51 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWF vs. TIP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than TIP's maximum drawdown of -14.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and TIP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWF | TIP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.25% | -14.57% | -49.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.27% | -1.98% | -14.29% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.36% | -4.54% | -18.82% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.72% | -14.51% | -18.21% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.72% | -14.51% | -18.21% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.59% | -0.47% | -5.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.06% | -3.43% | -18.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.92% | 0.66% | +4.26% |
Volatility
IWF vs. TIP - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 5.43% compared to iShares TIPS Bond ETF (TIP) at 1.03%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TIP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWF | TIP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.43% | 1.03% | +4.40% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.40% | 2.35% | +10.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.96% | 3.39% | +12.57% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.47% | 6.21% | +15.26% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.01% | 5.74% | +15.27% |
IWF vs. TIP - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both IWF and TIP 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. TIP - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than TIP's 3.76% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
TIP iShares TIPS Bond ETF | 3.76% | 3.46% | 2.52% | 2.73% | 6.96% | 4.28% | 1.17% | 1.75% | 2.71% | 2.07% | 1.48% | 0.34% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWF and TIP have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWF has higher volatility (5.43%) compared to TIP (1.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs TIP's -14.57%.
On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.15% vs 2.50% for TIP. Both ETFs have the same 0.18% expense ratio. On volatility, TIP has been the lower-risk option at 1.03%. 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 18.15% return vs 2.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWF and TIP have the same expense ratio: 0.18% per year.
TIP has the higher dividend yield at 3.76%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.
IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while TIP is Inflation-Protected Bonds. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while TIP tracks ICE U.S. Treasury Inflation Linked Bond Index.
TIP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 vs 1.21), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWF and TIP
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