IWL vs. MTUM
IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) and MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWL is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Top 200 Index, while MTUM is a Momentum fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWL returned 15.94%/yr vs 16.34%/yr for MTUM. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.15% expense ratio.
Performance
IWL vs. MTUM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWL achieves a 9.11% return, which is significantly lower than MTUM's 25.95% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWL having a 15.94% annualized return and MTUM not far ahead at 16.34%.
IWL
- 1D
- -0.93%
- 1M
- 1.22%
- 6M
- 7.39%
- YTD
- 9.11%
- 1Y
- 21.24%
- 3Y*
- 21.09%
- 5Y*
- 13.40%
- 10Y*
- 15.94%
MTUM
- 1D
- -2.22%
- 1M
- -2.90%
- 6M
- 21.75%
- YTD
- 25.95%
- 1Y
- 34.12%
- 3Y*
- 30.38%
- 5Y*
- 14.17%
- 10Y*
- 16.34%
IWL vs. MTUM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF | 9.11% | 19.09% | 27.12% | 29.77% | -19.89% | 27.79% | 22.10% | 31.42% | -3.30% | 22.90% |
MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | 25.95% | 22.15% | 32.89% | 9.15% | -18.27% | 13.36% | 29.86% | 27.25% | -1.67% | 37.50% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWL and MTUM is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.81 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.86 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.85 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.84 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2013 | 0.85 |
The correlation between IWL and MTUM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.
IWL vs. MTUM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IWL
MTUM
Technology
Communication Services
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Basic Materials
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
IWL
MTUM
Communication Services
IWL
MTUM
Financial Services
IWL
MTUM
Consumer Cyclical
IWL
MTUM
Healthcare
IWL
MTUM
Industrials
IWL
MTUM
Consumer Defensive
IWL
MTUM
Energy
IWL
MTUM
Basic Materials
IWL
MTUM
Utilities
IWL
MTUM
Real Estate
IWL
MTUM
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. MTUM — Risk / Return Rank
IWL
MTUM
IWL vs. MTUM - 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 Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM). 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 | MTUM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.27 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.17 | 2.97 | -0.80 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.00 | 10.23 | -1.24 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWL vs. MTUM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWL drawdown since its inception was -32.71%, roughly equal to the maximum MTUM drawdown of -34.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWL and MTUM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWL | MTUM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.71% | -34.08% | +1.37% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.83% | -11.54% | +1.71% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.15% | -20.99% | +1.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.65% | -32.28% | +6.63% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.71% | -34.08% | +1.37% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.65% | -8.86% | +7.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.88% | -6.19% | +2.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.37% | 3.34% | -0.97% |
Volatility
IWL vs. MTUM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) is 4.25%, while iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) has a volatility of 13.18%. This indicates that IWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MTUM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWL | MTUM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.25% | 13.18% | -8.93% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.29% | 21.54% | -11.25% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.96% | 23.81% | -10.85% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.30% | 21.54% | -4.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.10% | 21.52% | -3.42% |
IWL vs. MTUM - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both IWL and MTUM have an expense ratio of 0.15%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
IWL vs. MTUM - Dividend Comparison
IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, more than MTUM's 0.59% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | 0.59% | 0.91% | 0.75% | 1.35% | 1.80% | 0.55% | 0.83% | 1.48% | 1.27% | 1.02% | 1.43% | 1.12% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWL and MTUM have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MTUM has higher volatility (13.18%) compared to IWL (4.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWL dropped -32.71% vs MTUM's -34.08%.
On 10-year performance, MTUM leads with 16.34% vs 15.94% for IWL. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, IWL has been the lower-risk option at 4.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, MTUM has performed better with a 16.34% return vs 15.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWL and MTUM have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.
IWL has the higher dividend yield at 0.85%, compared with 0.59% for MTUM.
IWL is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while MTUM is Momentum. IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index, while MTUM tracks MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index.
IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.65 vs 1.44), 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 MTUM
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