IWLG vs. ALTL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IWLG (NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF) and ALTL (Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IWLG is actively managed, while ALTL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWLG returned 22.32%/yr vs 14.20%/yr for ALTL. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWLG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for ALTL.

Performance

IWLG vs. ALTL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) and Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF (ALTL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWLG achieves a 4.40% return, which is significantly lower than ALTL's 20.56% return.

IWLG

• 1D: -1.01%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: 4.40%
• 6M: 3.72%
• 1Y: 15.44%
• 3Y*: 22.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ALTL

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: 10.54%
• YTD: 20.56%
• 6M: 20.25%
• 1Y: 46.05%
• 3Y*: 14.20%
• 5Y*: 6.02%
• 10Y*: —

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

IWLG vs. ALTL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWLG NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF	4.40%	14.73%	31.47%	43.25%	1.48%
ALTL Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF	20.56%	16.61%	12.30%	-15.85%	2.99%

Correlation

The correlation between IWLG and ALTL is 0.53, 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	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2022	0.57

The correlation between IWLG and ALTL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWLG vs. ALTL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWLG	ALTL
Technology	49.3%	42.5%
Industrials	14.8%	9.7%
Communication Services	12.3%	3.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	12.4%
Healthcare	5.5%	1.9%
Financial Services	5.2%	16.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	1.0%
Utilities	1.2%	4.0%
Basic Materials	1.2%	6.1%
Energy	-	1.8%
Real Estate	-	14.8%

Return for Risk

IWLG vs. ALTL — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWLG

IWLG Risk / Return Rank: 23
IWLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
IWLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
IWLG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
IWLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
IWLG Martin Ratio Rank: 20

ALTL

ALTL Risk / Return Rank: 77
ALTL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
ALTL Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
ALTL Omega Ratio Rank: 73
ALTL Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
ALTL Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

IWLG vs. ALTL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) and Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF (ALTL). 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.

	IWLG	ALTL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	2.30	-1.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.29	2.98	-1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.42	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.80	4.73	-3.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.40	15.98	-13.58

IWLG vs. ALTL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWLG Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the ALTL Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWLG and ALTL, 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

IWLG vs. ALTL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWLG drawdown since its inception was -23.19%, smaller than the maximum ALTL drawdown of -31.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWLG and ALTL.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWLG	ALTL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.19%	-31.91%	+8.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.45%	-9.79%	-9.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.19%	-21.21%	-1.98%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.51%	0.00%	-2.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.56%	-11.50%	+6.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.45%	2.89%	+3.56%

Volatility

IWLG vs. ALTL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) is 7.13%, while Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF (ALTL) has a volatility of 10.73%. This indicates that IWLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ALTL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWLG	ALTL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.13%	10.73%	-3.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.77%	14.62%	-0.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.47%	20.16%	-2.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.10%	18.89%	+2.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.10%	20.41%	+0.69%

IWLG vs. ALTL - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWLG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than ALTL's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWLG vs. ALTL - Dividend Comparison

IWLG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ALTL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ALTL Pacer Lunt Large Cap Alternator ETF	0.85%	0.95%	1.56%	1.28%	1.23%	1.06%	0.75%
IWLG NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	1.34%	0.01%	0.05%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWLG and ALTL in my portfolio?

IWLG and ALTL have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWLG or ALTL?

ALTL has higher volatility (10.73%) compared to IWLG (7.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWLG dropped -23.19% vs ALTL's -31.91%.

Which ETF is better, IWLG or ALTL?

On 3-year performance, IWLG leads with 22.32% vs 14.20% for ALTL. On fees, IWLG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, IWLG has been the lower-risk option at 7.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWLG or ALTL?

Over the 3-year period, IWLG has performed better with a 22.32% return vs 14.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWLG or ALTL?

IWLG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for ALTL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWLG or ALTL?

ALTL has the higher dividend yield at 0.85%, compared with 0.00% for IWLG.

What is the main difference between IWLG and ALTL?

They also come from different issuers: NYLI and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for IWLG and 0.60% for ALTL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ALTL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.30 vs 0.89), 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.