PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IWFG vs. ACSI
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IWFG vs. ACSI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) and American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFG achieves a -0.56% return, which is significantly lower than ACSI's 14.17% return.


IWFG

1D
2.22%
1M
0.09%
6M
2.87%
YTD
-0.56%
1Y
3.04%
3Y*
19.56%
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
21.99%

ACSI

1D
0.21%
1M
1.63%
6M
13.62%
YTD
14.17%
1Y
22.16%
3Y*
17.61%
5Y*
9.40%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
13.17%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$16.95K$27.03K$21.14K
$10.80K$36.95K$116.85K

IWFG vs. ACSI - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
IWFG
NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
-0.56%14.33%37.56%38.40%4.47%
ACSI
American Customer Satisfaction ETF
14.17%10.70%22.51%21.06%0.10%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFG and ACSI is 0.55, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.55

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2022

0.74

The correlation between IWFG and ACSI shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.74 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWFG vs. ACSI - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWFG
ACSI

Technology

48.7%
12.5%

Industrials

16.6%
7.3%

Communication Services

15.2%
15.4%

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%
24.2%

Utilities

4.5%
3.9%

Healthcare

4.3%
8.5%

Financial Services

3.2%
9.6%

Basic Materials

1.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

-

12.4%

Energy

-

3.4%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

IWFG
48.7%
ACSI
12.5%

Industrials

IWFG
16.6%
ACSI
7.3%

Communication Services

IWFG
15.2%
ACSI
15.4%

Consumer Cyclical

IWFG
10.6%
ACSI
24.2%

Utilities

IWFG
4.5%
ACSI
3.9%

Healthcare

IWFG
4.3%
ACSI
8.5%

Financial Services

IWFG
3.2%
ACSI
9.6%

Basic Materials

IWFG
1.4%
ACSI

-

Consumer Defensive

IWFG

-

ACSI
12.4%

Energy

IWFG

-

ACSI
3.4%

Real Estate

IWFG

-

ACSI

-

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

IWFG vs. ACSI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IWFG
IWFG Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
IWFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWFG Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
IWFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWFG Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
Martin Ratio Rank

ACSI
ACSI Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
ACSI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACSI Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACSI Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
ACSI Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACSI Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IWFG vs. ACSI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) and American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI). 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.


IWFGACSIDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.65

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.02

1.29

-0.27

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.03

2.58

-2.55

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.09

9.91

-9.82

IWFG vs. ACSI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.03, which is lower than the ACSI Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFG and ACSI, 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

IWFG vs. ACSI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFG drawdown since its inception was -21.97%, smaller than the maximum ACSI drawdown of -34.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFG and ACSI.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWFGACSIDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.97%

-34.49%

+12.52%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-20.20%

-7.76%

-12.44%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.97%

-15.27%

-6.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.86%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.31%

-1.07%

-4.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.16%

-5.32%

+1.16%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.20%

2.02%

+5.18%

Volatility

IWFG vs. ACSI - Volatility Comparison

NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) has a higher volatility of 6.48% compared to American Customer Satisfaction ETF (ACSI) at 3.50%. This indicates that IWFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACSI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWFGACSIDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.48%

3.50%

+2.98%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.71%

9.43%

+5.28%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.48%

11.91%

+6.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.61%

16.66%

+3.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.61%

17.35%

+3.26%

IWFG vs. ACSI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFG has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is lower than ACSI's 0.66% expense ratio.


Dividends

IWFG vs. ACSI - Dividend Comparison

IWFG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACSI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.80%.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
ACSI
American Customer Satisfaction ETF
0.80%0.91%0.69%1.01%0.81%0.31%0.82%1.64%1.59%1.20%0.18%
IWFG
NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
0.00%0.00%5.44%1.01%0.05%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWFG and ACSI have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWFG has higher volatility (6.48%) compared to ACSI (3.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFG dropped -21.97% vs ACSI's -34.49%.

On 3-year performance, IWFG leads with 19.56% vs 17.61% for ACSI. On fees, IWFG is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, ACSI has been the lower-risk option at 3.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, IWFG has performed better with a 19.56% return vs 17.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWFG is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.66% for ACSI.

ACSI has the higher dividend yield at 0.80%, compared with 0.00% for IWFG.

They also come from different issuers: New York Life and Exponential ETFs. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IWFG and 0.66% for ACSI.

ACSI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.68 vs 0.03), 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 IWFG and ACSI

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