PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IWO vs. IAU
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IWO vs. IAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWO achieves a 16.75% return, which is significantly higher than IAU's 2.98% return. Over the past 10 years, IWO has underperformed IAU with an annualized return of 11.23%, while IAU has yielded a comparatively higher 13.31% annualized return.


IWO

1D
-1.41%
1M
4.28%
YTD
16.75%
6M
15.06%
1Y
37.09%
3Y*
18.01%
5Y*
5.56%
10Y*
11.23%

IAU

1D
-0.98%
1M
-1.62%
YTD
2.98%
6M
5.50%
1Y
32.20%
3Y*
31.29%
5Y*
18.32%
10Y*
13.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWO vs. IAU - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWO
iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF
16.75%12.90%15.04%18.51%-26.27%2.54%34.68%28.48%-9.43%22.25%
IAU
iShares Gold Trust
2.98%63.95%26.85%12.84%-0.63%-4.00%25.03%17.98%-1.76%12.91%

Correlation

The correlation between IWO and IAU is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.18

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.14

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.06

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2005

0.08

The correlation between IWO and IAU shifts across timeframes, from 0.06 (10 years) to 0.19 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWO vs. IAU - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWO
IAU

Technology

23.6%

-

Industrials

23.1%

-

Healthcare

22.4%

-

Financial Services

8.2%

-

Consumer Cyclical

7.7%

-

Basic Materials

4.2%

-

Energy

3.5%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.6%

-

Communication Services

2.2%

-

Real Estate

2.1%
100.0%

Utilities

0.7%

-

Technology

IWO
23.6%
IAU

-

Industrials

IWO
23.1%
IAU

-

Healthcare

IWO
22.4%
IAU

-

Financial Services

IWO
8.2%
IAU

-

Consumer Cyclical

IWO
7.7%
IAU

-

Basic Materials

IWO
4.2%
IAU

-

Energy

IWO
3.5%
IAU

-

Consumer Defensive

IWO
2.6%
IAU

-

Communication Services

IWO
2.2%
IAU

-

Real Estate

IWO
2.1%
IAU
100.0%

Utilities

IWO
0.7%
IAU

-

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

IWO vs. IAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWO
IWO Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
IWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWO Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
IWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWO Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
Martin Ratio Rank

IAU
IAU Risk / Return Rank: 3232
Overall Rank
IAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAU Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
IAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAU Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IWO vs. IAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) and iShares Gold Trust (IAU). 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.


IWOIAUDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.53

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.24

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.51

1.69

+0.82

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.99

4.19

+4.81

IWO vs. IAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWO Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is higher than the IAU Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWO and IAU, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IWOIAUDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.75

1.23

+0.53

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.23

1.03

-0.80

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

0.84

-0.37

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.28

0.62

-0.34

Drawdowns

IWO vs. IAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWO drawdown since its inception was -60.11%, which is greater than IAU's maximum drawdown of -45.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWO and IAU.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWOIAUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-60.11%

-45.14%

-14.97%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.87%

-19.18%

+4.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.57%

-19.18%

-9.39%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.51%

-20.93%

-19.58%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.02%

-21.82%

-20.20%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.51%

-17.70%

+16.19%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.71%

-15.96%

-0.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.14%

7.71%

-3.57%

Volatility

IWO vs. IAU - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) has a higher volatility of 6.61% compared to iShares Gold Trust (IAU) at 5.50%. This indicates that IWO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWOIAUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.61%

5.50%

+1.11%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.65%

23.02%

-7.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.34%

26.42%

-5.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.48%

17.95%

+6.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.13%

15.90%

+8.23%

IWO vs. IAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWO has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than IAU's 0.25% 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

IWO vs. IAU - Dividend Comparison

IWO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%, while IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IAU
iShares Gold Trust
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IWO
iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF
0.40%0.56%0.80%0.73%0.73%0.32%0.44%0.71%0.76%0.73%0.97%0.89%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWO and IAU have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWO has higher volatility (6.61%) compared to IAU (5.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWO dropped -60.11% vs IAU's -45.14%.

On 10-year performance, IAU leads with 13.31% vs 11.23% for IWO. On fees, IWO is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, IAU has been the lower-risk option at 5.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IAU has performed better with a 13.31% return vs 11.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWO is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for IAU.

IWO has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.

IWO is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while IAU is Gold. IWO tracks Russell 2000 Growth Index, while IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for IWO and 0.25% for IAU.

IWO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 1.23), 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 IWO and IAU

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