IWL vs. XLG

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWL is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Top 200 Index, while XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWL returned 15.75%/yr vs 16.30%/yr for XLG. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

IWL vs. XLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWL achieves a 8.01% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 2.78% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWL having a 15.75% annualized return and XLG not far ahead at 16.30%.

IWL

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -0.81%
• 6M: 7.12%
• YTD: 8.01%
• 1Y: 19.12%
• 3Y*: 20.41%
• 5Y*: 13.26%
• 10Y*: 15.75%
• ALL TIME*: 14.61%

XLG

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -1.51%
• 6M: 3.54%
• YTD: 2.78%
• 1Y: 15.07%
• 3Y*: 20.58%
• 5Y*: 13.82%
• 10Y*: 16.30%
• ALL TIME*: 11.33%

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

IWL vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF	8.01%	19.09%	27.12%	29.77%	-19.89%	27.79%	22.10%	31.42%	-3.30%	22.90%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	2.78%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between IWL and XLG 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	0.98
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2009	0.92

The correlation between IWL and XLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWL vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWL	XLG
Technology	41.0%	49.5%
Financial Services	11.9%	9.7%
Communication Services	11.3%	13.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	10.0%
Healthcare	8.6%	6.6%
Industrials	7.5%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	5.0%
Energy	2.5%	2.2%
Basic Materials	1.3%	0.6%
Utilities	1.2%	0.8%
Real Estate	0.9%	-

Return for Risk

IWL vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWL

IWL Risk / Return Rank: 57
IWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
IWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
IWL Omega Ratio Rank: 57
IWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
IWL Martin Ratio Rank: 62

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 36
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 37
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 35

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. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	1.06	+0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	1.52	+0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.19	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.95	1.22	+0.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.05	4.01	+4.04

IWL vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWL Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is higher than the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWL and XLG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IWL vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWL drawdown since its inception was -32.71%, smaller than the maximum XLG drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWL and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWL	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.71%	-52.39%	+19.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.83%	-12.41%	+2.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.15%	-20.70%	+1.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.65%	-28.02%	+2.37%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.71%	-30.46%	-2.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.65%	-5.83%	+3.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.87%	-7.63%	+3.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.38%	3.77%	-1.39%

Volatility

IWL vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) is 3.54%, while Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 4.49%. This indicates that IWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWL	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.54%	4.49%	-0.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.36%	11.19%	-0.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.04%	14.27%	-1.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.28%	18.83%	-1.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.10%	18.88%	-0.78%

IWL vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.86%, more than XLG's 0.65% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF	0.86%	0.90%	1.04%	1.30%	1.54%	1.12%	1.30%	1.96%	1.93%	1.69%	1.96%	2.14%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.65%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWL and XLG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, IWL and XLG 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 XLG?

XLG has higher volatility (4.49%) compared to IWL (3.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWL dropped -32.71% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, IWL or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 16.30% vs 15.75% for IWL. On fees, IWL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, IWL has been the lower-risk option at 3.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWL or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 16.30% return vs 15.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWL or XLG?

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

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

IWL has the higher dividend yield at 0.86%, compared with 0.65% for XLG.

What is the main difference between IWL and XLG?

IWL is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWL and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.48 vs 1.06), 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.