IWFG vs. IUSG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IWFG (NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF) and IUSG (iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWFG is actively managed, while IUSG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWFG returned 21.47%/yr vs 25.00%/yr for IUSG. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWFG charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for IUSG.

Performance

IWFG vs. IUSG - 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 Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFG achieves a -0.58% return, which is significantly lower than IUSG's 9.19% return.

IWFG

• 1D: -2.56%
• 1M: -1.32%
• YTD: -0.58%
• 6M: -1.53%
• 1Y: 7.26%
• 3Y*: 21.47%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IUSG

• 1D: -2.31%
• 1M: -1.86%
• YTD: 9.19%
• 6M: 7.87%
• 1Y: 26.96%
• 3Y*: 25.00%
• 5Y*: 13.77%
• 10Y*: 17.77%

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

IWFG vs. IUSG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWFG NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF	-0.58%	14.33%	37.56%	38.40%	4.47%
IUSG iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF	9.19%	21.23%	34.70%	29.28%	-1.36%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFG and IUSG is 0.95, 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	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2022	0.95

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

IWFG vs. IUSG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWFG	IUSG
Technology	49.1%	50.8%
Communication Services	15.2%	15.2%
Industrials	11.5%	6.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	8.4%
Utilities	4.3%	1.1%
Healthcare	4.0%	6.4%
Financial Services	2.9%	8.7%
Basic Materials	1.4%	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.2%
Energy	-	0.3%
Real Estate	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

IWFG vs. IUSG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWFG

IWFG Risk / Return Rank: 14
IWFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
IWFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
IWFG Omega Ratio Rank: 14
IWFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
IWFG Martin Ratio Rank: 14

IUSG

IUSG Risk / Return Rank: 47
IUSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
IUSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
IUSG Omega Ratio Rank: 45
IUSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
IUSG Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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. IUSG - 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 Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG). 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	IUSG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	1.60	-1.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.68	2.20	-1.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.28	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.36	2.07	-1.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.04	8.45	-7.41

IWFG vs. IUSG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower than the IUSG Sharpe Ratio of 1.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFG and IUSG, 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. IUSG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFG drawdown since its inception was -21.97%, smaller than the maximum IUSG drawdown of -63.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFG and IUSG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWFG	IUSG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.97%	-63.41%	+41.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.20%	-13.07%	-7.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.97%	-22.28%	+0.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-32.21%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.32%	-5.23%	-0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.13%	-21.40%	+17.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.97%	3.20%	+3.77%

Volatility

IWFG vs. IUSG - Volatility Comparison

NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) and iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG) have volatilities of 6.88% and 7.16%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWFG	IUSG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.88%	7.16%	-0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.69%	13.66%	+0.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.49%	16.92%	+0.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.59%	21.06%	-0.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.59%	20.48%	+0.11%

IWFG vs. IUSG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

IWFG vs. IUSG - Dividend Comparison

IWFG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IUSG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.50%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IUSG iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF	0.50%	0.53%	0.59%	1.12%	1.07%	0.59%	0.93%	1.64%	1.32%	1.28%	1.48%	1.29%
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 IUSG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, IWFG and IUSG 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.

Which is riskier, IWFG or IUSG?

IUSG has higher volatility (7.16%) compared to IWFG (6.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFG dropped -21.97% vs IUSG's -63.41%.

Which ETF is better, IWFG or IUSG?

On 3-year performance, IUSG leads with 25.00% vs 21.47% for IWFG. On fees, IUSG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IWFG has been the lower-risk option at 6.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWFG or IUSG?

Over the 3-year period, IUSG has performed better with a 25.00% return vs 21.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWFG or IUSG?

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

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

IUSG has the higher dividend yield at 0.50%, compared with 0.00% for IWFG.

What is the main difference between IWFG and IUSG?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IUSG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 0.42), 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.