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

Performance

IWF vs. XLY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLY). 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 2.83% return, which is significantly higher than XLY's -2.41% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed XLY with an annualized return of 18.15%, while XLY has yielded a comparatively lower 12.72% 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%

XLY

1D
2.48%
1M
-1.68%
YTD
-2.41%
6M
-2.84%
1Y
9.18%
3Y*
13.28%
5Y*
6.94%
10Y*
12.72%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWF vs. XLY - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
XLY
Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund
-2.41%7.37%26.51%39.64%-36.27%27.93%29.63%28.39%1.58%22.82%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and XLY is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.68

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

0.77

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

0.83

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

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2000

0.82

The correlation between IWF and XLY shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.83 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWF vs. XLY - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWF
XLY

Technology

53.2%
0.9%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
97.6%

Communication Services

12.3%
1.3%

Healthcare

7.0%

-

Industrials

5.0%
0.1%

Financial Services

4.9%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.5%

-

Utilities

1.1%

-

Real Estate

0.4%

-

Energy

0.4%

-

Basic Materials

0.3%

-

Technology

IWF
53.2%
XLY
0.9%

Consumer Cyclical

IWF
12.7%
XLY
97.6%

Communication Services

IWF
12.3%
XLY
1.3%

Healthcare

IWF
7.0%
XLY

-

Industrials

IWF
5.0%
XLY
0.1%

Financial Services

IWF
4.9%
XLY

-

Consumer Defensive

IWF
2.5%
XLY

-

Utilities

IWF
1.1%
XLY

-

Real Estate

IWF
0.4%
XLY

-

Energy

IWF
0.4%
XLY

-

Basic Materials

IWF
0.3%
XLY

-

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. XLY — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF
IWF Risk / Return Rank: 3636
Overall Rank
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank

XLY
XLY Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
XLY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLY Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLY Omega Ratio Rank: 1818
Omega Ratio Rank
XLY Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLY Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
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. XLY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLY). 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.


IWFXLYDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.86

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.10

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.19

0.62

+0.58

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.93

1.89

+2.04

IWF vs. XLY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.21, which is higher than the XLY Sharpe Ratio of 0.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and XLY, 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. XLY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than XLY's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and XLY.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWFXLYDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.25%

-59.05%

-5.20%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.27%

-14.98%

-1.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.36%

-26.01%

+2.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.72%

-39.67%

+6.95%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.72%

-39.67%

+6.95%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.59%

-6.41%

+0.82%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.06%

-9.55%

-12.51%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.92%

4.86%

+0.06%

Volatility

IWF vs. XLY - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is 5.43%, while Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLY) has a volatility of 6.20%. This indicates that IWF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWFXLYDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.43%

6.20%

-0.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.40%

13.52%

-1.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.96%

18.29%

-2.33%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.47%

23.84%

-2.37%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.01%

22.08%

-1.07%

IWF vs. XLY - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than XLY's 0.77% 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%
XLY
Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR Fund
0.77%0.79%0.72%0.78%1.00%0.53%0.82%1.28%1.34%1.20%1.71%1.43%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWF and XLY have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XLY has higher volatility (6.20%) compared to IWF (5.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs XLY's -59.05%.

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.15% vs 12.72% for XLY. On fees, XLY is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 5.43%. 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 12.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

XLY has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.

IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while XLY is Consumer Discretionary Equities. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while XLY tracks Consumer Discretionary Select Sector Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.13% for XLY.

IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.21 vs 0.50), 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 XLY

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