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 4.85% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 15.66% return. Over the past 10 years, IWP has underperformed ILCG with an annualized return of 12.51%, while ILCG has yielded a comparatively higher 18.27% annualized return.


IWP

1D
-0.18%
1M
5.41%
YTD
4.85%
6M
4.45%
1Y
7.95%
3Y*
16.29%
5Y*
7.09%
10Y*
12.51%

ILCG

1D
0.13%
1M
8.76%
YTD
15.66%
6M
15.63%
1Y
31.81%
3Y*
26.98%
5Y*
15.51%
10Y*
18.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWP vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
4.85%8.45%21.86%25.70%-26.90%12.60%35.25%35.04%-4.89%24.93%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
15.66%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 0.75, 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

0.75

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

0.80

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

0.87

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

0.88

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 6, 2004

0.90

The correlation between IWP and ILCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.75 (1 year) to 0.90 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWP vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWP
ILCG

Industrials

24.2%
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

21.1%
10.6%

Technology

20.0%
49.8%

Healthcare

13.5%
5.3%

Financial Services

6.9%
6.0%

Communication Services

4.2%
14.5%

Energy

3.8%
0.5%

Utilities

2.9%
0.8%

Consumer Defensive

1.5%
1.6%

Real Estate

1.4%
1.4%

Basic Materials

0.4%
1.1%

Industrials

IWP
24.2%
ILCG
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

IWP
21.1%
ILCG
10.6%

Technology

IWP
20.0%
ILCG
49.8%

Healthcare

IWP
13.5%
ILCG
5.3%

Financial Services

IWP
6.9%
ILCG
6.0%

Communication Services

IWP
4.2%
ILCG
14.5%

Energy

IWP
3.8%
ILCG
0.5%

Utilities

IWP
2.9%
ILCG
0.8%

Consumer Defensive

IWP
1.5%
ILCG
1.6%

Real Estate

IWP
1.4%
ILCG
1.4%

Basic Materials

IWP
0.4%
ILCG
1.1%

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

IWP
IWP Risk / Return Rank: 1616
Overall Rank
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1616
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 1515
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank

ILCG
ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 5151
Overall Rank
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 4242
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 4545
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. 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.


IWPILCGDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.48

1.96

-1.48

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.80

2.61

-1.82

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.09

1.34

-0.25

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.56

2.09

-1.52

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

1.64

7.37

-5.73

IWP vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is 0.48, which is lower than the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.96. 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IWPILCGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.48

1.96

-1.48

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.32

0.71

-0.39

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.58

0.85

-0.27

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.59

-0.16

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

-1.07%

0.00%

-1.07%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.69%

-8.22%

-1.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.06%

4.43%

+0.63%

Volatility

IWP vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) is 3.49%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 4.18%. 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

3.49%

4.18%

-0.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.60%

12.77%

-0.17%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.47%

16.28%

+0.19%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.31%

22.00%

+0.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.68%

21.53%

+0.15%

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 0.32%, less than ILCG's 0.40% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
0.40%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
0.32%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 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ILCG has higher volatility (4.18%) compared to IWP (3.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

On 10-year performance, ILCG leads with 18.27% vs 12.51% for IWP. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IWP has been the lower-risk option at 3.49%. 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 18.27% return vs 12.51%. 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 0.40%, compared with 0.32% 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 (1.96 vs 0.48), 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