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

Performance

IWP vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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 0.23% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 7.63% return. Over the past 10 years, IWP has underperformed ILCG with an annualized return of 11.67%, while ILCG has yielded a comparatively higher 17.08% annualized return.


IWP

1D
-0.32%
1M
-4.14%
6M
1.18%
YTD
0.23%
1Y
-1.18%
3Y*
11.93%
5Y*
4.22%
10Y*
11.67%
ALL TIME*
9.10%

ILCG

1D
1.01%
1M
-2.02%
6M
6.99%
YTD
7.63%
1Y
14.00%
3Y*
21.19%
5Y*
11.47%
10Y*
17.08%
ALL TIME*
11.52%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$5.46M$7.04M$9.78M
$113.97M$109.26M$114.31M

IWP vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
0.23%8.45%21.86%25.70%-26.90%12.60%35.25%35.04%-4.89%24.93%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
7.63%16.71%32.82%40.41%-31.75%24.33%38.56%33.22%2.06%30.57%

Correlation

The correlation between IWP and ILCG is 0.77, 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.

0.77

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.80

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.87

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.88

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2004

0.90

The correlation between IWP and ILCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.77 (1 year) to 0.90 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWP vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWP
ILCG

Technology

31.6%
54.1%

Industrials

20.4%
10.9%

Healthcare

13.9%
5.3%

Consumer Cyclical

13.4%
9.2%

Energy

4.5%
0.7%

Financial Services

4.3%
4.7%

Communication Services

3.2%
9.7%

Utilities

2.5%
0.9%

Real Estate

2.5%
1.5%

Basic Materials

2.4%
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

1.3%
1.6%

Technology

IWP
31.6%
ILCG
54.1%

Industrials

IWP
20.4%
ILCG
10.9%

Healthcare

IWP
13.9%
ILCG
5.3%

Consumer Cyclical

IWP
13.4%
ILCG
9.2%

Energy

IWP
4.5%
ILCG
0.7%

Financial Services

IWP
4.3%
ILCG
4.7%

Communication Services

IWP
3.2%
ILCG
9.7%

Utilities

IWP
2.5%
ILCG
0.9%

Real Estate

IWP
2.5%
ILCG
1.5%

Basic Materials

IWP
2.4%
ILCG
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

IWP
1.3%
ILCG
1.6%

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. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWP
IWP Risk / Return Rank: 88
Overall Rank
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 77
Martin Ratio Rank

ILCG
ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


IWPILCGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.79

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.99

1.12

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.19

0.76

-0.95

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.52

2.42

-2.93

IWP vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is -0.16, which is lower than the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWP and ILCG, 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...

Drawdowns

IWP vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, which is greater than ILCG's maximum drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and ILCG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWPILCGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.92%

-52.98%

-3.94%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.79%

-15.65%

+0.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.20%

-23.10%

-2.10%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.62%

-35.38%

-3.24%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.62%

-35.38%

-3.24%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.40%

-6.94%

+0.54%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.64%

-8.20%

-1.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.31%

4.91%

+0.40%

Volatility

IWP vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) is 5.14%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 6.14%. This indicates that IWP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWPILCGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.14%

6.14%

-1.00%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.94%

15.54%

-1.60%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.56%

18.72%

-1.16%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.47%

22.37%

+0.10%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.71%

21.70%

+0.01%

IWP vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% 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. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.36%, less than ILCG's 0.43% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
0.43%0.47%0.50%0.69%0.75%0.34%0.28%0.54%0.81%0.89%0.95%0.99%
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
0.36%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 ILCG have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ILCG has higher volatility (6.14%) compared to IWP (5.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

On 10-year performance, ILCG leads with 17.08% vs 11.67% for IWP. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IWP has been the lower-risk option at 5.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 17.08% return vs 11.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.43%, compared with 0.36% for IWP.

IWP is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while ILCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index, while ILCG tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWP and 0.04% for ILCG.

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.64 vs -0.16), 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 ILCG

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