IWL vs. FITZ
IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) and FITZ (Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWL is passively managed, while FITZ is actively managed. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IWL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for FITZ.
Performance
IWL vs. FITZ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
IWL
- 1D
- 0.44%
- 1M
- 4.89%
- YTD
- 10.51%
- 6M
- 10.48%
- 1Y
- 28.95%
- 3Y*
- 23.64%
- 5Y*
- 14.69%
- 10Y*
- 16.38%
FITZ
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWL vs. FITZ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF | 0.23% |
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | -1.66% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWL and FITZ is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026 | 0.20 |
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. FITZ — Risk / Return Rank
IWL
FITZ
IWL vs. FITZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF (FITZ). 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.
| IWL | FITZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.96 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.13 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IWL | FITZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.39 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.86 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.91 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.88 | -7.29 | +8.17 |
Drawdowns
IWL vs. FITZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWL drawdown since its inception was -32.71%, which is greater than FITZ's maximum drawdown of -1.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWL and FITZ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWL | FITZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.71% | -1.97% | -30.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.83% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.15% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.65% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.71% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.39% | -1.97% | +1.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.88% | -1.08% | -2.80% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.21% | — | — |
Volatility
IWL vs. FITZ - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWL | FITZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.95% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.15% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.19% | 8.74% | +3.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.16% | 8.74% | +8.42% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.08% | 8.74% | +9.34% |
IWL vs. FITZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than FITZ's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWL vs. FITZ - Dividend Comparison
IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.82%, while FITZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF | 0.82% | 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 FITZ have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IWL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IWL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for FITZ.
IWL has the higher dividend yield at 0.82%, compared with 0.00% for FITZ.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Nicholas. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWL and 0.75% for FITZ.
Find the right allocation for IWL and FITZ
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