IWF vs. TLT
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and TLT (iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while TLT is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 17.44%/yr vs -2.33%/yr for TLT. Their -0.22 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for TLT.
Performance
IWF vs. TLT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 2.33% return, which is significantly higher than TLT's -3.18% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed TLT with an annualized return of 17.44%, while TLT has yielded a comparatively lower -2.33% annualized 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%
TLT
- 1D
- 0.33%
- 1M
- -3.49%
- 6M
- -2.86%
- YTD
- -3.18%
- 1Y
- -2.12%
- 3Y*
- -1.15%
- 5Y*
- -8.33%
- 10Y*
- -2.33%
- ALL TIME*
- 3.48%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $458.24M | $549.09M | $635.49M | |
| $2.39B | $2.06B | $2.20B |
IWF vs. TLT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 2.33% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 42.59% | -29.31% | 27.43% | 38.25% | 35.86% | -1.67% | 29.95% |
TLT iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF | -3.18% | 4.25% | -8.05% | 2.77% | -31.23% | -4.60% | 18.15% | 14.12% | -1.61% | 9.18% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and TLT is 0.20, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.20 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.12 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.08 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | -0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2002 | -0.22 |
The correlation between IWF and TLT shifts across timeframes, from -0.22 (all time) to 0.20 (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. TLT — Risk / Return Rank
IWF
TLT
IWF vs. TLT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT). 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 | TLT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.94 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | 0.97 | +0.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.76 | -0.28 | +1.04 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.27 | -0.59 | +2.86 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWF vs. TLT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than TLT's maximum drawdown of -48.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and TLT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWF | TLT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.25% | -48.35% | -15.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.27% | -7.74% | -8.53% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.36% | -14.79% | -8.57% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.72% | -43.70% | +10.98% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.72% | -48.35% | +15.63% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.05% | -42.17% | +36.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -21.98% | -14.00% | -7.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.46% | 3.60% | +1.86% |
Volatility
IWF vs. TLT - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 6.73% compared to iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) at 2.51%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TLT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWF | TLT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.73% | 2.51% | +4.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.19% | 6.84% | +7.35% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.54% | 9.24% | +8.30% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.73% | 15.74% | +5.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.12% | 14.83% | +6.29% |
IWF vs. TLT - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than TLT's 0.15% 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. TLT - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than TLT's 4.75% 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% |
TLT iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF | 4.75% | 4.43% | 4.30% | 3.38% | 2.67% | 1.50% | 1.50% | 2.27% | 2.63% | 2.43% | 2.60% | 2.61% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWF and TLT have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWF has higher volatility (6.73%) compared to TLT (2.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs TLT's -48.35%.
On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 17.44% vs -2.33% for TLT. On fees, TLT is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, TLT has been the lower-risk option at 2.51%. 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 17.44% return vs -2.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
TLT is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IWF.
TLT has the higher dividend yield at 4.75%, compared with 0.36% for IWF.
IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while TLT is Government Bonds. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while TLT tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.15% for TLT.
IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.71 vs -0.23), 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 TLT
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