IWFG vs. IOO

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

IWFG (NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF) and IOO (iShares Global 100 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by New York Life, while IOO is a Global Equities fund tracking the S&P Global 100 Index (Net). IWFG is actively managed, while IOO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWFG returned 21.61%/yr vs 23.03%/yr for IOO. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWFG charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for IOO.

Performance

IWFG vs. IOO - 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 Global 100 ETF (IOO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFG achieves a -1.03% return, which is significantly lower than IOO's 6.27% return.

IWFG

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -2.40%
• YTD: -1.03%
• 6M: -2.12%
• 1Y: 4.63%
• 3Y*: 21.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IOO

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: -5.32%
• YTD: 6.27%
• 6M: 5.57%
• 1Y: 27.68%
• 3Y*: 23.03%
• 5Y*: 15.14%
• 10Y*: 16.72%

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

IWFG vs. IOO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWFG NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF	-1.03%	14.33%	37.56%	38.40%	4.47%
IOO iShares Global 100 ETF	6.27%	27.02%	26.54%	27.71%	1.03%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFG and IOO is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2022	0.91

The correlation between IWFG and IOO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWFG vs. IOO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWFG	IOO
Technology	49.1%	47.0%
Communication Services	15.2%	10.8%
Industrials	11.5%	4.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	8.4%
Utilities	4.3%	0.5%
Healthcare	4.0%	8.4%
Financial Services	2.9%	9.2%
Basic Materials	1.4%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.6%
Energy	-	3.6%
Real Estate	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

IWFG vs. IOO — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWFG

IWFG Risk / Return Rank: 12
IWFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
IWFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
IWFG Omega Ratio Rank: 12
IWFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
IWFG Martin Ratio Rank: 12

IOO

IOO Risk / Return Rank: 69
IOO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
IOO Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
IOO Omega Ratio Rank: 67
IOO Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
IOO Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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. IOO - 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 Global 100 ETF (IOO). 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.

	IWFG	IOO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.27	1.95	-1.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.48	2.68	-2.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.35	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.23	2.80	-2.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.66	11.68	-11.01

IWFG vs. IOO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.27, which is lower than the IOO Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFG and IOO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IWFG vs. IOO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFG drawdown since its inception was -21.97%, smaller than the maximum IOO drawdown of -55.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFG and IOO.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFG	IOO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.97%	-55.85%	+33.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.20%	-9.94%	-10.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.97%	-19.19%	-2.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.52%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.43%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.75%	-6.59%	+0.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.13%	-11.25%	+7.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.99%	2.38%	+4.61%

Volatility

IWFG vs. IOO - Volatility Comparison

NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) has a higher volatility of 6.84% compared to iShares Global 100 ETF (IOO) at 5.29%. This indicates that IWFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IOO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFG	IOO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.84%	5.29%	+1.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.61%	11.49%	+2.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.39%	14.24%	+3.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.57%	17.17%	+3.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.57%	17.73%	+2.84%

IWFG vs. IOO - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFG has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is higher than IOO's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFG vs. IOO - Dividend Comparison

IWFG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IOO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IOO iShares Global 100 ETF	0.87%	0.92%	1.08%	1.49%	2.00%	1.53%	1.49%	2.02%	2.54%	2.23%	2.75%	2.89%
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

Can I hold both IWFG and IOO in my portfolio?

IWFG and IOO have a correlation of 0.90, 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 IOO?

IWFG has higher volatility (6.84%) compared to IOO (5.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFG dropped -21.97% vs IOO's -55.85%.

Which ETF is better, IWFG or IOO?

On 3-year performance, IOO leads with 23.03% vs 21.61% for IWFG. On fees, IOO is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, IOO has been the lower-risk option at 5.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFG or IOO?

Over the 3-year period, IOO has performed better with a 23.03% return vs 21.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFG or IOO?

IOO is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.46% for IWFG.

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

IOO has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.00% for IWFG.

What is the main difference between IWFG and IOO?

IWFG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IOO is Global Equities. They also come from different issuers: New York Life and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IWFG and 0.40% for IOO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IOO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 0.27), 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.