IWL vs. LRGF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) and LRGF (iShares MSCI USA Multifactor 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 MSCI USA Diversified Multi-Factor. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWL returned 16.38%/yr vs 14.03%/yr for LRGF. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.20%/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 MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with IWL having a 10.03% return and LRGF slightly higher at 10.50%. Over the past 10 years, IWL has outperformed LRGF with an annualized return of 16.38%, while LRGF has yielded a comparatively lower 14.03% 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%

LRGF

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 6.20%
• YTD: 10.50%
• 6M: 10.60%
• 1Y: 24.87%
• 3Y*: 22.80%
• 5Y*: 13.83%
• 10Y*: 14.03%

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

IWL vs. LRGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
LRGF iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF	10.50%	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 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 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	40.9%	35.6%
Communication Services	12.2%	8.2%
Financial Services	11.3%	12.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	11.2%
Healthcare	8.5%	9.1%
Industrials	6.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	6.0%
Energy	2.5%	3.7%
Utilities	1.7%	2.3%
Basic Materials	1.4%	2.0%
Real Estate	1.0%	1.3%

Return for Risk

IWL vs. LRGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWL

IWL Risk / Return Rank: 67
IWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
IWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
IWL Omega Ratio Rank: 69
IWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
IWL Martin Ratio Rank: 69

LRGF

LRGF Risk / Return Rank: 60
LRGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
LRGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
LRGF Omega Ratio Rank: 60
LRGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
LRGF Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. LRGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	IWL	LRGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.35	2.08	+0.27
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	2.86	+0.34
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.37	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.91	2.80	+0.11
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.92	11.62	+1.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWL vs. LRGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.35, which is comparable to the LRGF Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWL	LRGF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.35	2.08	+0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85	0.82	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.91	0.77	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.88	0.70	+0.19

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWL	LRGF	Difference
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	-0.83%	-0.71%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.88%	-4.54%	+0.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.21%	2.14%	+0.07%

Volatility

IWL vs. LRGF - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) have volatilities of 2.98% and 2.92%, 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

	IWL	LRGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.98%	2.92%	+0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.15%	9.09%	+0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.19%	12.06%	+0.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.17%	17.03%	+0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.08%	18.31%	-0.23%

IWL vs. LRGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than LRGF's 0.20% 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. LRGF - Dividend Comparison

IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.82%, less than LRGF's 1.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
LRGF iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF	1.06%	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

Can I hold both IWL and LRGF in my portfolio?

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.

Which is riskier, IWL or LRGF?

IWL has higher volatility (2.98%) compared to LRGF (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWL dropped -32.71% vs LRGF's -36.03%.

Which ETF is better, IWL or LRGF?

On 10-year performance, IWL leads with 16.38% vs 14.03% for LRGF. On fees, IWL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWL or LRGF?

Over the 10-year period, IWL has performed better with a 16.38% return vs 14.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWL or LRGF?

IWL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for LRGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWL or LRGF?

LRGF has the higher dividend yield at 1.06%, compared with 0.82% for IWL.

What is the main difference between IWL and LRGF?

IWL is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while LRGF is Large Cap Blend Equities. IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index, while LRGF tracks MSCI USA Diversified Multi-Factor. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWL and 0.20% for LRGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs 2.08), 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.