PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWF vs. TLT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWF vs. TLT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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 18.49%/yr vs -1.66%/yr for TLT. At a correlation of -0.23, they often move in opposite directions. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for TLT.

Performance

IWF vs. TLT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT). 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 7.11% return, which is significantly higher than TLT's -0.27% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed TLT with an annualized return of 18.49%, while TLT has yielded a comparatively lower -1.66% annualized return.

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%

TLT

1D
-0.40%
1M
0.81%
YTD
-0.27%
6M
-2.02%
1Y
4.93%
3Y*
-1.80%
5Y*
-6.31%
10Y*
-1.66%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWF vs. TLT - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
TLT
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF		-0.27%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 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.16

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

0.14

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

0.07

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

-0.04

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 29, 2002

-0.23

The correlation between IWF and TLT shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (all time) to 0.16 (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.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF

iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF

Often compared with IWF:
IWF vs. IWDIWF vs. VUGIWF vs. SPYIWF vs. VOOIWF vs. IWMIWF vs. VONGIWF vs. IWY
Often compared with TLT:
TLT vs. SPYTLT vs. IEFTLT vs. TMFTLT vs. BNDTLT vs. VGLTTLT vs. TLTWTLT vs. EDV

Return for Risk

IWF vs. TLT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWF
IWF Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4545
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
Martin Ratio Rank
TLT
TLT Risk / Return Rank: 1616
Overall Rank
TLT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TLT Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
TLT Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
TLT Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
TLT Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
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. 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.

IWFTLTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.67
0.51

+1.16

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.29
0.80

+1.49

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.09

+0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.58

0.65

+0.93

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.28

1.63

+3.66

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. TLT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is higher than the TLT Sharpe Ratio of 0.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and TLT, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

IWFTLTDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.67

0.51

+1.16

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.72

-0.40

+1.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.88

-0.11

+1.00

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.40

0.26

+0.14

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

IWFTLTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.25%

-48.35%

-15.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.27%

-7.58%

-8.69%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.36%

-19.18%

-4.18%

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 Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.66%

-40.44%

+38.78%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.08%

-13.82%

-8.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.86%

3.04%

+1.82%

Volatility

IWF vs. TLT - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 3.61% compared to iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) at 2.76%. 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

IWFTLTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.61%

2.76%

+0.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.66%

6.50%

+5.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.44%

9.77%

+5.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.40%

15.87%

+5.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.97%

14.91%

+6.06%

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 0.33%, less than TLT's 4.59% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
TLT
iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF		4.59%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 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWF has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to TLT (2.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs TLT's -48.35%.

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.49% vs -1.66% for TLT. On fees, TLT is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, TLT has been the lower-risk option at 2.76%. 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 18.49% return vs -1.66%. 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 4.59%, compared with 0.33% 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 (1.67 vs 0.51), 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 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