IWF vs. TRLGX
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and TRLGX (T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Fund) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWF is passively managed, while TRLGX is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 18.25%/yr vs 18.33%/yr for TRLGX. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for TRLGX.
Performance
IWF vs. TRLGX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 1.31% return, which is significantly higher than TRLGX's -1.57% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWF having a 18.25% annualized return and TRLGX not far ahead at 18.33%.
IWF
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- -4.18%
- YTD
- 1.31%
- 6M
- -0.20%
- 1Y
- 16.05%
- 3Y*
- 21.73%
- 5Y*
- 12.88%
- 10Y*
- 18.25%
TRLGX
- 1D
- -1.31%
- 1M
- -3.90%
- YTD
- -1.57%
- 6M
- -2.65%
- 1Y
- 10.72%
- 3Y*
- 22.05%
- 5Y*
- 9.86%
- 10Y*
- 18.33%
IWF vs. TRLGX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 1.31% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 42.59% | -29.31% | 27.43% | 38.25% | 35.86% | -1.67% | 29.95% |
TRLGX T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Fund | -1.57% | 17.51% | 37.57% | 46.22% | -35.26% | 23.24% | 39.57% | 28.51% | 4.35% | 37.77% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and TRLGX is 0.93, 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 | 0.93 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2001 | 0.95 |
The correlation between IWF and TRLGX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. TRLGX — Risk / Return Rank
IWF
TRLGX
IWF vs. TRLGX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Fund (TRLGX). 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 | TRLGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.23 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.14 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.99 | 0.70 | +0.29 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.21 | 2.15 | +1.06 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWF vs. TRLGX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than TRLGX's maximum drawdown of -55.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and TRLGX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWF | TRLGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.25% | -55.56% | -8.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.27% | -18.18% | +1.91% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.36% | -21.17% | -2.19% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.72% | -40.44% | +7.72% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.72% | -40.44% | +7.72% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.99% | -7.20% | +0.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.04% | -8.67% | -13.37% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.01% | 5.87% | -0.86% |
Volatility
IWF vs. TRLGX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is 6.06%, while T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Fund (TRLGX) has a volatility of 6.54%. This indicates that IWF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TRLGX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWF | TRLGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.06% | 6.54% | -0.48% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.58% | 13.45% | -0.87% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.20% | 16.54% | -0.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.52% | 22.49% | -0.97% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.01% | 21.78% | -0.77% |
IWF vs. TRLGX - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than TRLGX's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWF vs. TRLGX - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than TRLGX's 13.91% 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% |
TRLGX T. Rowe Price Large-Cap Growth Fund | 13.91% | 13.69% | 9.80% | 2.04% | 3.88% | 2.56% | 0.42% | 4.09% | 7.93% | 9.27% | 1.64% | 4.71% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.93, IWF and TRLGX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
TRLGX has higher volatility (6.54%) compared to IWF (6.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs TRLGX's -55.56%.
IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.00 vs 0.77), 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 TRLGX
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