IWFG vs. ALTL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWFG (NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF) and ALTL (Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWFG is actively managed, while ALTL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWFG returned 23.02%/yr vs 13.86%/yr for ALTL. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWFG charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for ALTL.

Performance

IWFG vs. ALTL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFG achieves a 2.08% return, which is significantly lower than ALTL's 16.90% return.

IWFG

• 1D: -1.30%
• 1M: 4.41%
• YTD: 2.08%
• 6M: 1.13%
• 1Y: 11.87%
• 3Y*: 23.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ALTL

• 1D: -0.66%
• 1M: 12.43%
• YTD: 16.90%
• 6M: 16.56%
• 1Y: 44.84%
• 3Y*: 13.86%
• 5Y*: 5.04%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWFG vs. ALTL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWFG NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF	2.08%	14.33%	37.56%	38.40%	3.75%
ALTL Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF	16.90%	16.61%	12.30%	-15.85%	1.34%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFG and ALTL is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2022	0.56

The correlation between IWFG and ALTL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWFG vs. ALTL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWFG	ALTL
Technology	52.4%	4.6%
Communication Services	13.3%	0.8%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	5.7%
Industrials	7.5%	10.2%
Healthcare	5.5%	6.8%
Financial Services	4.8%	16.6%
Utilities	4.0%	26.8%
Basic Materials	-	2.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	10.8%
Energy	-	0.9%
Real Estate	-	14.8%

Return for Risk

IWFG vs. ALTL — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWFG

IWFG Risk / Return Rank: 19
IWFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
IWFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
IWFG Omega Ratio Rank: 21
IWFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
IWFG Martin Ratio Rank: 17

ALTL

ALTL Risk / Return Rank: 78
ALTL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
ALTL Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
ALTL Omega Ratio Rank: 74
ALTL Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
ALTL Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

IWFG vs. ALTL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) and Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF (ALTL). 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.

	IWFG	ALTL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.72	2.51	-1.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.07	3.29	-2.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.44	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.59	4.60	-4.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.73	16.35	-14.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWFG vs. ALTL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is lower than the ALTL Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFG and ALTL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWFG	ALTL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72	2.51	-1.78
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.28	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.16	0.73	+0.43

Drawdowns

IWFG vs. ALTL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFG drawdown since its inception was -21.97%, smaller than the maximum ALTL drawdown of -31.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFG and ALTL.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFG	ALTL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.97%	-31.91%	+9.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.20%	-9.79%	-10.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.97%	-21.21%	-0.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.79%	-0.66%	-2.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.13%	-11.58%	+7.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.89%	2.75%	+4.14%

Volatility

IWFG vs. ALTL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is 3.85%, while Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF (ALTL) has a volatility of 7.26%. This indicates that IWFG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ALTL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFG	ALTL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.85%	7.26%	-3.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.59%	10.97%	+1.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.50%	18.05%	-1.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.48%	18.38%	+2.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.48%	20.09%	+0.39%

IWFG vs. ALTL - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFG has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is lower than ALTL's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFG vs. ALTL - Dividend Comparison

IWFG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ALTL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ALTL Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF	0.94%	0.95%	1.56%	1.28%	1.23%	1.06%	0.75%
IWFG NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	5.44%	1.01%	0.05%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWFG and ALTL in my portfolio?

IWFG and ALTL have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWFG or ALTL?

ALTL has higher volatility (7.26%) compared to IWFG (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFG dropped -21.97% vs ALTL's -31.91%.

Which ETF is better, IWFG or ALTL?

On 3-year performance, IWFG leads with 23.02% vs 13.86% for ALTL. On fees, IWFG is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, IWFG has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFG or ALTL?

Over the 3-year period, IWFG has performed better with a 23.02% return vs 13.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFG or ALTL?

IWFG is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for ALTL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWFG or ALTL?

ALTL has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.00% for IWFG.

What is the main difference between IWFG and ALTL?

They also come from different issuers: New York Life and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IWFG and 0.60% for ALTL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ALTL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 0.72), 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.