PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IWL vs. IWR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IWL vs. IWR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWL achieves a 10.03% return, which is significantly lower than IWR's 12.43% return. Over the past 10 years, IWL has outperformed IWR with an annualized return of 16.38%, while IWR has yielded a comparatively lower 11.55% annualized return.


IWL

1D
-0.83%
1M
5.18%
YTD
10.03%
6M
10.03%
1Y
28.50%
3Y*
23.42%
5Y*
14.59%
10Y*
16.38%

IWR

1D
-0.26%
1M
3.79%
YTD
12.43%
6M
12.21%
1Y
21.66%
3Y*
17.25%
5Y*
8.00%
10Y*
11.55%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWL vs. IWR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWL
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF
10.03%19.09%27.12%29.77%-19.89%27.79%22.10%31.42%-3.30%22.90%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF
12.43%10.37%15.21%17.05%-17.48%22.44%16.93%30.23%-9.10%18.25%

Correlation

The correlation between IWL and IWR is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.70

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.75

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2009

0.83

The correlation between IWL and IWR shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.85 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWL vs. IWR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWL
IWR

Technology

40.9%
17.2%

Communication Services

12.2%
3.4%

Financial Services

11.3%
12.5%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
11.2%

Healthcare

8.5%
8.7%

Industrials

6.1%
18.4%

Consumer Defensive

4.7%
4.1%

Energy

2.5%
7.2%

Utilities

1.7%
6.1%

Basic Materials

1.4%
4.3%

Real Estate

1.0%
7.0%

Technology

IWL
40.9%
IWR
17.2%

Communication Services

IWL
12.2%
IWR
3.4%

Financial Services

IWL
11.3%
IWR
12.5%

Consumer Cyclical

IWL
9.6%
IWR
11.2%

Healthcare

IWL
8.5%
IWR
8.7%

Industrials

IWL
6.1%
IWR
18.4%

Consumer Defensive

IWL
4.7%
IWR
4.1%

Energy

IWL
2.5%
IWR
7.2%

Utilities

IWL
1.7%
IWR
6.1%

Basic Materials

IWL
1.4%
IWR
4.3%

Real Estate

IWL
1.0%
IWR
7.0%

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. IWR — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWL
IWL Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWL Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
IWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWL Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank

IWR
IWR Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IWL vs. IWR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR). 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.


IWLIWRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.72

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.84

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.28

+0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.91

2.66

+0.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.92

10.28

+2.64

IWL vs. IWR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.35, which is higher than the IWR Sharpe Ratio of 1.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWL and IWR, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IWLIWRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.35

1.63

+0.72

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.85

0.44

+0.41

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.91

0.60

+0.31

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.88

0.49

+0.39

Drawdowns

IWL vs. IWR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWL drawdown since its inception was -32.71%, smaller than the maximum IWR drawdown of -58.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWL and IWR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWLIWRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.71%

-58.78%

+26.07%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.83%

-8.17%

-1.66%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.15%

-21.09%

+1.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.65%

-26.18%

+0.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.71%

-40.59%

+7.88%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.83%

-0.26%

-0.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.88%

-7.80%

+3.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.21%

2.11%

+0.10%

Volatility

IWL vs. IWR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) is 2.98%, while iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) has a volatility of 3.26%. This indicates that IWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWLIWRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.98%

3.26%

-0.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.15%

9.84%

-0.69%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.19%

13.39%

-1.20%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.17%

18.23%

-1.06%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.08%

19.36%

-1.28%

IWL vs. IWR - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IWR's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

IWL vs. IWR - Dividend Comparison

IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.82%, less than IWR's 1.15% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF
1.15%1.29%1.27%1.43%1.59%1.04%1.28%1.43%1.98%1.52%1.72%1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWL and IWR have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWR has higher volatility (3.26%) compared to IWL (2.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWL dropped -32.71% vs IWR's -58.78%.

On 10-year performance, IWL leads with 16.38% vs 11.55% for IWR. On fees, IWL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, IWL has been the lower-risk option at 2.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWL has performed better with a 16.38% return vs 11.55%. 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 0.19% for IWR.

IWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 0.82% for IWL.

IWL is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IWR is Mid Cap Growth Equities. IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index, while IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWL and 0.19% for IWR.

IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs 1.63), 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 IWL and IWR

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