IWL vs. CCOR
IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) and CCOR (Core Alternative ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWL is passively managed, while CCOR is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWL returned 13.23%/yr vs -1.67%/yr for CCOR. Their 0.20 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. IWL charges 0.15%/yr vs 1.09%/yr for CCOR.
Performance
IWL vs. CCOR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWL achieves a 8.65% return, which is significantly higher than CCOR's 0.43% return.
IWL
- 1D
- 0.87%
- 1M
- 0.06%
- 6M
- 7.61%
- YTD
- 8.65%
- 1Y
- 20.97%
- 3Y*
- 20.19%
- 5Y*
- 13.23%
- 10Y*
- 15.89%
- ALL TIME*
- 14.62%
CCOR
- 1D
- -0.57%
- 1M
- 0.53%
- 6M
- -3.08%
- YTD
- 0.43%
- 1Y
- -1.08%
- 3Y*
- -0.82%
- 5Y*
- -1.67%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 1.70%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $61.54K | $68.15K | $77.63K | |
| $7.92M | $7.26M | $9.02M |
IWL vs. CCOR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF | 8.65% | 19.09% | 27.12% | 29.77% | -19.89% | 27.79% | 22.10% | 31.42% | -3.30% | 13.41% |
CCOR Core Alternative ETF | 0.43% | 3.52% | -5.70% | -11.92% | 2.51% | 9.90% | 4.07% | 6.03% | 4.64% | 3.97% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWL and CCOR is -0.12, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.12 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.12 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.11 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2017 | 0.20 |
The correlation between IWL and CCOR shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.20 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
IWL vs. CCOR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IWL
CCOR
Technology
Financial Services
Communication Services
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Utilities
Basic Materials
Real Estate
Technology
IWL
CCOR
Financial Services
IWL
CCOR
Communication Services
IWL
CCOR
Healthcare
IWL
CCOR
Consumer Cyclical
IWL
CCOR
Industrials
IWL
CCOR
Consumer Defensive
IWL
CCOR
Energy
IWL
CCOR
Utilities
IWL
CCOR
Basic Materials
IWL
CCOR
Real Estate
IWL
CCOR
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
IWL vs. CCOR — Risk / Return Rank
IWL
CCOR
IWL vs. CCOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and Core Alternative ETF (CCOR). 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.
| IWL | CCOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.53 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 0.99 | +0.27 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.92 | -0.11 | +2.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.71 | -0.23 | +7.94 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWL vs. CCOR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWL drawdown since its inception was -32.71%, which is greater than CCOR's maximum drawdown of -22.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWL and CCOR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWL | CCOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.71% | -22.99% | -9.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.83% | -8.79% | -1.04% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.15% | -12.31% | -6.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.65% | -22.99% | -2.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.71% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.07% | -16.59% | +14.52% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.87% | -7.47% | +3.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.44% | 4.18% | -1.74% |
Volatility
IWL vs. CCOR - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) has a higher volatility of 4.00% compared to Core Alternative ETF (CCOR) at 3.61%. This indicates that IWL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWL | CCOR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.00% | 3.61% | +0.39% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.53% | 6.45% | +4.08% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.35% | 8.20% | +5.15% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.32% | 11.19% | +6.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.12% | 10.78% | +7.34% |
IWL vs. CCOR - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CCOR's 1.09% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWL vs. CCOR - Dividend Comparison
IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, less than CCOR's 0.99% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCOR Core Alternative ETF | 0.99% | 1.07% | 1.18% | 1.21% | 1.11% | 1.02% | 1.50% | 0.73% | 1.53% | 0.89% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF | 0.85% | 0.90% | 1.04% | 1.30% | 1.54% | 1.12% | 1.30% | 1.96% | 1.93% | 1.69% | 1.96% | 2.14% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWL and CCOR have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IWL has higher volatility (4.00%) compared to CCOR (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWL dropped -32.71% vs CCOR's -22.99%.
On 5-year performance, IWL leads with 13.23% vs -1.67% for CCOR. On fees, IWL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, CCOR has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IWL has performed better with a 13.23% return vs -1.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 1.09% for CCOR.
CCOR has the higher dividend yield at 0.99%, compared with 0.85% for IWL.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Core Alternative. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWL and 1.09% for CCOR.
IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 vs -0.12), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWL and CCOR
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