PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWL vs. LRGF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWL vs. LRGF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) and LRGF (iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWL is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Top 200 Index, while LRGF is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the STOXX U.S. Equity Factor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWL returned 15.89%/yr vs 13.82%/yr for LRGF. Their correlation of 0.91 means they have usually moved in the same direction. IWL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for LRGF.

Performance

IWL vs. LRGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF (LRGF). 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 8.65% return, which is significantly lower than LRGF's 10.17% return. Over the past 10 years, IWL has outperformed LRGF with an annualized return of 15.89%, while LRGF has yielded a comparatively lower 13.82% annualized 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%

LRGF

1D
0.71%
1M
1.00%
6M
9.84%
YTD
10.17%
1Y
19.37%
3Y*
19.82%
5Y*
13.36%
10Y*
13.82%
ALL TIME*
12.32%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IWL

iShares Russell Top 200 ETF
$7.92M$7.26M$9.02M

LRGF

iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF
$10.71M$10.50M$11.75M

IWL vs. LRGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWL
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF		8.65%19.09%27.12%29.77%-19.89%27.79%22.10%31.42%-3.30%22.90%
LRGF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF		10.17%16.48%26.59%25.85%-14.77%25.01%11.11%26.11%-9.66%21.13%

Correlation

The correlation between IWL and LRGF is 0.97 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.97

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.97

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.97

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.93

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 30, 2015

0.91

The correlation between IWL and LRGF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWL vs. LRGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWL
LRGF

Technology

40.8%
37.3%

Financial Services

12.2%
11.7%

Communication Services

10.5%
10.0%

Healthcare

9.0%
9.4%

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
10.5%

Industrials

7.2%
8.3%

Consumer Defensive

4.5%
4.9%

Energy

2.7%
3.1%

Utilities

1.7%
2.0%

Basic Materials

1.3%
1.8%

Real Estate

1.0%
1.1%

Technology

IWL
40.8%
LRGF
37.3%

Financial Services

IWL
12.2%
LRGF
11.7%

Communication Services

IWL
10.5%
LRGF
10.0%

Healthcare

IWL
9.0%
LRGF
9.4%

Consumer Cyclical

IWL
8.8%
LRGF
10.5%

Industrials

IWL
7.2%
LRGF
8.3%

Consumer Defensive

IWL
4.5%
LRGF
4.9%

Energy

IWL
2.7%
LRGF
3.1%

Utilities

IWL
1.7%
LRGF
2.0%

Basic Materials

IWL
1.3%
LRGF
1.8%

Real Estate

IWL
1.0%
LRGF
1.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Russell Top 200 ETF

iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF

Often compared with IWL:
IWL vs. IWYIWL vs. VOOIWL vs. SPYIWL vs. IVVIWL vs. QQQIWL vs. QQQMIWL vs. QUAL
Often compared with LRGF:
LRGF vs. VOOLRGF vs. QUALLRGF vs. INTFLRGF vs. SPYLRGF vs. FNDALRGF vs. JQUALRGF vs. VV

Return for Risk

IWL vs. LRGF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
IWL
IWL Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
IWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWL Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
IWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWL Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank
LRGF
LRGF Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
LRGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LRGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
LRGF Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
LRGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
LRGF Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IWL vs. LRGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF (LRGF). 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.

IWLLRGFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.41
1.36

+0.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.97
1.91

+0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.24

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.92

1.97

-0.05

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.71

7.67

+0.04

IWL vs. LRGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWL Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is comparable to the LRGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWL and LRGF, 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...

Drawdowns

IWL vs. LRGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWL drawdown since its inception was -32.71%, smaller than the maximum LRGF drawdown of -36.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWL and LRGF.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWLLRGFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.71%

-36.03%

+3.32%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.83%

-8.92%

-0.91%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.15%

-19.44%

+0.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.65%

-21.62%

-4.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.71%

-36.03%

+3.32%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.07%

-1.01%

-1.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.87%

-4.50%

+0.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.44%

2.29%

+0.15%

Volatility

IWL vs. LRGF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) has a higher volatility of 4.00% compared to iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF (LRGF) at 3.52%. This indicates that IWL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LRGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWLLRGFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.00%

3.52%

+0.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.53%

10.08%

+0.45%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.35%

12.89%

+0.46%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.32%

17.09%

+0.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.12%

18.30%

-0.18%

IWL vs. LRGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than LRGF's 0.08% expense ratio. However, 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. LRGF - Dividend Comparison

IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, less than LRGF's 1.08% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
LRGF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor ETF		1.08%1.16%1.23%1.49%1.78%1.05%1.35%1.76%3.27%1.68%1.56%0.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.97, IWL and LRGF 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.

IWL has higher volatility (4.00%) compared to LRGF (3.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWL dropped -32.71% vs LRGF's -36.03%.

On 10-year performance, IWL leads with 15.89% vs 13.82% for LRGF. On fees, LRGF is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, LRGF has been the lower-risk option at 3.52%. 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 15.89% return vs 13.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LRGF is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for IWL.

LRGF has the higher dividend yield at 1.08%, compared with 0.85% for IWL.

IWL is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while LRGF is Large Cap Blend Equities. IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index, while LRGF tracks STOXX U.S. Equity Factor Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWL and 0.08% for LRGF.

IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 vs 1.36), 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 LRGF

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