IWP vs. EFG

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

IWP (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and EFG (iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWP is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Midcap Growth Index, while EFG is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWP returned 11.76%/yr vs 7.84%/yr for EFG. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. IWP charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for EFG.

Performance

IWP vs. EFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWP achieves a 2.33% return, which is significantly lower than EFG's 8.01% return. Over the past 10 years, IWP has outperformed EFG with an annualized return of 11.76%, while EFG has yielded a comparatively lower 7.84% annualized return.

IWP

• 1D: 2.09%
• 1M: -2.13%
• 6M: 2.92%
• YTD: 2.33%
• 1Y: 0.89%
• 3Y*: 13.76%
• 5Y*: 4.52%
• 10Y*: 11.76%
• ALL TIME*: 9.18%

EFG

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: -1.26%
• 6M: 2.73%
• YTD: 8.01%
• 1Y: 16.84%
• 3Y*: 11.43%
• 5Y*: 3.78%
• 10Y*: 7.84%
• ALL TIME*: 6.11%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EFG iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF	$88.80M	$95.04M	$106.71M
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	$87.21M	$107.35M	$115.18M

IWP vs. EFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	2.33%	8.45%	21.86%	25.70%	-26.90%	12.60%	35.25%	35.04%	-4.89%	24.93%
EFG iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF	8.01%	20.70%	1.53%	17.55%	-23.12%	11.01%	17.85%	27.47%	-12.93%	28.86%

Correlation

The correlation between IWP and EFG is 0.72, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.71
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.75
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2005	0.77

The correlation between IWP and EFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWP vs. EFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWP	EFG
Technology	31.6%	22.2%
Industrials	20.4%	27.6%
Healthcare	13.9%	13.2%
Consumer Cyclical	13.4%	9.2%
Energy	4.5%	0.5%
Financial Services	4.3%	11.0%
Communication Services	3.2%	4.8%
Utilities	2.5%	1.4%
Real Estate	2.5%	0.7%
Basic Materials	2.4%	5.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	3.8%

Return for Risk

IWP vs. EFG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IWP

IWP Risk / Return Rank: 12
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 12

EFG

EFG Risk / Return Rank: 37
EFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
EFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
EFG Omega Ratio Rank: 34
EFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
EFG Martin Ratio Rank: 43

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IWP vs. EFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG). 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.

	IWP	EFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.05	0.91	-0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.20	1.39	-1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.17	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.06	1.32	-1.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.17	4.77	-4.60

IWP vs. EFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is 0.05, which is lower than the EFG Sharpe Ratio of 0.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWP and EFG, 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

IWP vs. EFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, roughly equal to the maximum EFG drawdown of -58.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and EFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWP	EFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.92%	-58.40%	+1.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.79%	-12.78%	-2.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.20%	-16.87%	-8.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.62%	-35.78%	-2.84%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.62%	-35.78%	-2.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.44%	-2.66%	-1.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.64%	-12.08%	+2.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.32%	3.54%	+1.78%

Volatility

IWP vs. EFG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG) have volatilities of 5.50% and 5.66%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWP	EFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.50%	5.66%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.98%	16.25%	-2.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.63%	18.64%	-1.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.49%	18.46%	+4.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.73%	17.63%	+4.10%

IWP vs. EFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than EFG's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWP vs. EFG - Dividend Comparison

IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than EFG's 2.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFG iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF	2.28%	2.53%	1.64%	1.63%	1.27%	1.54%	0.85%	1.69%	1.98%	1.56%	2.20%	1.75%
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.35%	0.37%	0.40%	0.54%	0.77%	0.30%	0.38%	0.59%	1.02%	0.78%	1.16%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWP and EFG in my portfolio?

IWP and EFG have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWP or EFG?

EFG has higher volatility (5.66%) compared to IWP (5.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs EFG's -58.40%.

Which ETF is better, IWP or EFG?

On 10-year performance, IWP leads with 11.76% vs 7.84% for EFG. On fees, IWP is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, IWP has been the lower-risk option at 5.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWP or EFG?

Over the 10-year period, IWP has performed better with a 11.76% return vs 7.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWP or EFG?

IWP is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for EFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWP or EFG?

EFG has the higher dividend yield at 2.28%, compared with 0.35% for IWP.

What is the main difference between IWP and EFG?

IWP is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while EFG is Foreign Large Cap Equities. IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index, while EFG tracks MSCI EAFE Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWP and 0.34% for EFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.91 vs 0.05), 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.