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

Performance

IWO vs. RZG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with IWO having a 18.58% return and RZG slightly lower at 18.15%. Over the past 10 years, IWO has outperformed RZG with an annualized return of 11.28%, while RZG has yielded a comparatively lower 9.65% annualized return.


IWO

1D
1.57%
1M
3.99%
YTD
18.58%
6M
15.22%
1Y
39.51%
3Y*
19.07%
5Y*
5.89%
10Y*
11.28%

RZG

1D
-0.14%
1M
-0.10%
YTD
18.15%
6M
16.98%
1Y
30.70%
3Y*
17.12%
5Y*
4.85%
10Y*
9.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWO vs. RZG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWO
iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF
18.58%12.90%15.04%18.51%-26.27%2.54%34.68%28.48%-9.43%22.25%
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
18.15%10.22%9.84%19.15%-29.00%21.01%17.76%14.25%-8.70%19.18%

Correlation

The correlation between IWO and RZG is 0.88, 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

0.88

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

0.91

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

0.93

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

0.92

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2006

0.88

The correlation between IWO and RZG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWO vs. RZG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWO
RZG

Technology

23.6%
16.8%

Industrials

23.1%
18.2%

Healthcare

22.4%
22.0%

Financial Services

8.2%
15.0%

Consumer Cyclical

7.7%
8.8%

Basic Materials

4.2%
0.4%

Energy

3.5%
3.0%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
5.9%

Communication Services

2.2%
1.9%

Real Estate

2.1%
7.6%

Utilities

0.7%
0.4%

Technology

IWO
23.6%
RZG
16.8%

Industrials

IWO
23.1%
RZG
18.2%

Healthcare

IWO
22.4%
RZG
22.0%

Financial Services

IWO
8.2%
RZG
15.0%

Consumer Cyclical

IWO
7.7%
RZG
8.8%

Basic Materials

IWO
4.2%
RZG
0.4%

Energy

IWO
3.5%
RZG
3.0%

Consumer Defensive

IWO
2.6%
RZG
5.9%

Communication Services

IWO
2.2%
RZG
1.9%

Real Estate

IWO
2.1%
RZG
7.6%

Utilities

IWO
0.7%
RZG
0.4%

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. RZG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWO
IWO Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
IWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWO Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
IWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWO Martin Ratio Rank: 5656
Martin Ratio Rank

RZG
RZG Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
RZG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RZG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
RZG Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
RZG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
RZG Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
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. RZG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). 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.


IWORZGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.07

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.29

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.67

3.58

-0.91

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.58

11.94

-2.37

IWO vs. RZG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWO Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is comparable to the RZG Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWO and RZG, 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


IWORZGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.86

1.66

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.24

0.21

+0.03

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

0.39

+0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.29

0.37

-0.09

Drawdowns

IWO vs. RZG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWO drawdown since its inception was -60.11%, roughly equal to the maximum RZG drawdown of -58.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWO and RZG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWORZGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-60.11%

-58.52%

-1.59%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.87%

-8.63%

-6.24%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.57%

-25.73%

-2.84%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.51%

-38.33%

-2.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.02%

-54.02%

+12.00%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.92%

+1.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.70%

-12.13%

-4.57%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.14%

2.58%

+1.56%

Volatility

IWO vs. RZG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) has a higher volatility of 6.54% compared to Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) at 4.68%. This indicates that IWO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RZG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWORZGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.54%

4.68%

+1.86%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.72%

13.57%

+2.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.33%

18.57%

+2.76%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.49%

22.97%

+1.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.13%

24.64%

-0.51%

IWO vs. RZG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWO has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than RZG's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

IWO vs. RZG - Dividend Comparison

IWO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, less than RZG's 0.42% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWO
iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF
0.39%0.56%0.80%0.73%0.73%0.32%0.44%0.71%0.76%0.73%0.97%0.89%
RZG
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF
0.42%0.37%0.95%1.43%1.59%0.22%0.49%0.70%0.46%0.44%0.65%0.70%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWO and RZG have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWO has higher volatility (6.54%) compared to RZG (4.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWO dropped -60.11% vs RZG's -58.52%.

On 10-year performance, IWO leads with 11.28% vs 9.65% for RZG. On fees, IWO is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, RZG has been the lower-risk option at 4.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWO has performed better with a 11.28% return vs 9.65%. 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 0.35% for RZG.

RZG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.39% for IWO.

IWO tracks Russell 2000 Growth Index, while RZG tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Growth. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for IWO and 0.35% for RZG.

IWO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 vs 1.66), 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 RZG

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