PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IWP vs. IEFA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IWP vs. IEFA - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWP achieves a 1.66% return, which is significantly lower than IEFA's 7.49% return. Over the past 10 years, IWP has outperformed IEFA with an annualized return of 12.22%, while IEFA has yielded a comparatively lower 9.37% annualized return.


IWP

1D
-0.06%
1M
1.28%
YTD
1.66%
6M
0.18%
1Y
2.82%
3Y*
15.01%
5Y*
5.99%
10Y*
12.22%

IEFA

1D
0.63%
1M
-1.17%
YTD
7.49%
6M
10.04%
1Y
19.61%
3Y*
16.13%
5Y*
7.82%
10Y*
9.37%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWP vs. IEFA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
1.66%8.45%21.86%25.70%-26.90%12.60%35.25%35.04%-4.89%24.93%
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
7.49%32.08%3.26%17.95%-15.24%11.63%8.18%22.64%-14.14%26.57%

Correlation

The correlation between IWP and IEFA is 0.64, 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

0.64

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

0.66

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

0.70

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

0.70

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2012

0.72

The correlation between IWP and IEFA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWP vs. IEFA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWP
IEFA

Industrials

24.2%
20.1%

Consumer Cyclical

21.1%
8.0%

Technology

20.0%
10.8%

Healthcare

13.5%
9.5%

Financial Services

6.9%
22.5%

Communication Services

4.2%
4.4%

Energy

3.8%
3.8%

Utilities

2.9%
3.6%

Consumer Defensive

1.5%
6.6%

Real Estate

1.4%
3.0%

Basic Materials

0.4%
7.0%

Industrials

IWP
24.2%
IEFA
20.1%

Consumer Cyclical

IWP
21.1%
IEFA
8.0%

Technology

IWP
20.0%
IEFA
10.8%

Healthcare

IWP
13.5%
IEFA
9.5%

Financial Services

IWP
6.9%
IEFA
22.5%

Communication Services

IWP
4.2%
IEFA
4.4%

Energy

IWP
3.8%
IEFA
3.8%

Utilities

IWP
2.9%
IEFA
3.6%

Consumer Defensive

IWP
1.5%
IEFA
6.6%

Real Estate

IWP
1.4%
IEFA
3.0%

Basic Materials

IWP
0.4%
IEFA
7.0%

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

IWP vs. IEFA — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWP
IWP Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank

IEFA
IEFA Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
IEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
IEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
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.

IWP vs. IEFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


IWPIEFADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.52

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.24

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.19

1.71

-1.52

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.56

6.52

-5.96

IWP vs. IEFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is 0.17, which is lower than the IEFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWP and IEFA, 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


IWPIEFADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.17

1.30

-1.13

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.27

0.47

-0.21

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.57

0.54

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.42

0.50

-0.08

Drawdowns

IWP vs. IEFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, which is greater than IEFA's maximum drawdown of -34.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and IEFA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWPIEFADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.92%

-34.78%

-22.14%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.79%

-11.50%

-3.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.20%

-13.76%

-11.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.62%

-30.41%

-8.21%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.62%

-34.78%

-3.84%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.08%

-2.44%

-1.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.68%

-6.69%

-2.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.08%

3.02%

+2.06%

Volatility

IWP vs. IEFA - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) have volatilities of 4.62% and 4.54%, 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWPIEFADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.62%

4.54%

+0.08%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.93%

12.74%

+0.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.71%

15.22%

+1.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.34%

16.55%

+5.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.70%

17.32%

+4.38%

IWP vs. IEFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than IEFA's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

IWP vs. IEFA - Dividend Comparison

IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than IEFA's 3.30% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IEFA
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
3.30%3.55%3.47%3.20%2.70%3.32%1.90%3.18%3.46%2.57%2.96%2.63%
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
0.33%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


IWP and IEFA have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWP has higher volatility (4.62%) compared to IEFA (4.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs IEFA's -34.78%.

On 10-year performance, IWP leads with 12.22% vs 9.37% for IEFA. On fees, IEFA is cheaper at 0.07% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWP has performed better with a 12.22% return vs 9.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IEFA is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.

IEFA has the higher dividend yield at 3.30%, compared with 0.33% for IWP.

IWP is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while IEFA is Foreign Large Cap Equities. IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index, while IEFA tracks MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net). Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWP and 0.07% for IEFA.

IEFA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.30 vs 0.17), 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 IWP and IEFA

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