PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWFG vs. ILCG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWFG vs. ILCG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IWFG (NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWFG is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWFG returned 19.56%/yr vs 21.19%/yr for ILCG. Their 0.96 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. IWFG charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

IWFG vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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 ILCG's 7.63% 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%

ILCG

1D
1.01%
1M
-2.02%
6M
6.99%
YTD
7.63%
1Y
14.00%
3Y*
21.19%
5Y*
11.47%
10Y*
17.08%
ALL TIME*
11.52%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

ILCG

iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
$5.46M$7.04M$9.78M

IWFG

NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
$10.80K$36.95K$116.85K

IWFG vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
IWFG
NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF		-0.56%14.33%37.56%38.40%4.47%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF		7.63%16.71%32.82%40.41%-2.12%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFG and ILCG is 0.95 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

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

0.95

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

0.96

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

0.96

The correlation between IWFG and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWFG vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWFG
ILCG

Technology

48.7%
54.1%

Industrials

16.6%
10.9%

Communication Services

15.2%
9.7%

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%
9.2%

Utilities

4.5%
0.9%

Healthcare

4.3%
5.3%

Financial Services

3.2%
4.7%

Basic Materials

1.4%
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

-

1.6%

Energy

-

0.7%

Real Estate

-

1.5%

Technology

IWFG
48.7%
ILCG
54.1%

Industrials

IWFG
16.6%
ILCG
10.9%

Communication Services

IWFG
15.2%
ILCG
9.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IWFG
10.6%
ILCG
9.2%

Utilities

IWFG
4.5%
ILCG
0.9%

Healthcare

IWFG
4.3%
ILCG
5.3%

Financial Services

IWFG
3.2%
ILCG
4.7%

Basic Materials

IWFG
1.4%
ILCG
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

IWFG

-

ILCG
1.6%

Energy

IWFG

-

ILCG
0.7%

Real Estate

IWFG

-

ILCG
1.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF

iShares Morningstar Growth ETF

Often compared with IWFG:
IWFG vs. MMINIWFG vs. QAIIWFG vs. MMITIWFG vs. SCHXIWFG vs. ACSIIWFG vs. HFXIIWFG vs. FTCS
Often compared with ILCG:
ILCG vs. SCHGILCG vs. IUSGILCG vs. VUGILCG vs. ILCBILCG vs. QQQILCG vs. VOOILCG vs. MGK

Return for Risk

IWFG vs. ILCG — 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
ILCG
ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
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. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.

IWFGILCGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.03
0.64

-0.60

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.18
0.98

-0.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.02

1.12

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.03

0.76

-0.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.09

2.42

-2.33

IWFG vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.03, which is lower than the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFG and ILCG, 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. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFG drawdown since its inception was -21.97%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFG and ILCG.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWFGILCGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.97%

-52.98%

+31.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-20.20%

-15.65%

-4.55%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.97%

-23.10%

+1.13%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-35.38%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-35.38%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.31%

-6.94%

+1.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.16%

-8.20%

+4.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.20%

4.91%

+2.29%

Volatility

IWFG vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) has a higher volatility of 6.48% compared to iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) at 6.14%. This indicates that IWFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWFGILCGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.48%

6.14%

+0.34%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.71%

15.54%

-0.83%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.48%

18.72%

-0.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.61%

22.37%

-1.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.61%

21.70%

-1.09%

IWFG vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFG has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFG vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

IWFG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.43%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF		0.43%0.47%0.50%0.69%0.75%0.34%0.28%0.54%0.81%0.89%0.95%0.99%
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%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.95, IWFG and ILCG 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.

IWFG has higher volatility (6.48%) compared to ILCG (6.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFG dropped -21.97% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

On 3-year performance, ILCG leads with 21.19% vs 19.56% for IWFG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 6.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 21.19% return vs 19.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.46% for IWFG.

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.43%, compared with 0.00% for IWFG.

They also come from different issuers: New York Life and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IWFG and 0.04% for ILCG.

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.64 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 ILCG

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