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

Performance

IWP vs. IMCV - 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 Mid-Cap ETF (IMCV). 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 IMCV's 9.75% return. Over the past 10 years, IWP has outperformed IMCV with an annualized return of 12.22%, while IMCV has yielded a comparatively lower 10.39% 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%

IMCV

1D
-0.41%
1M
1.84%
YTD
9.75%
6M
11.34%
1Y
22.85%
3Y*
16.05%
5Y*
8.79%
10Y*
10.39%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWP vs. IMCV - 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%
IMCV
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF
9.75%13.52%12.28%11.89%-6.98%33.56%-4.11%24.72%-10.93%12.60%

Correlation

The correlation between IWP and IMCV is 0.67, 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

0.67

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

0.72

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

0.75

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

0.70

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

0.80

The correlation between IWP and IMCV shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWP vs. IMCV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWP
IMCV

Industrials

24.2%
12.1%

Consumer Cyclical

21.1%
8.7%

Technology

20.0%
9.1%

Healthcare

13.5%
8.5%

Financial Services

6.9%
15.6%

Communication Services

4.2%
2.5%

Energy

3.8%
12.5%

Utilities

2.9%
10.0%

Consumer Defensive

1.5%
8.9%

Real Estate

1.4%
5.6%

Basic Materials

0.4%
6.5%

Industrials

IWP
24.2%
IMCV
12.1%

Consumer Cyclical

IWP
21.1%
IMCV
8.7%

Technology

IWP
20.0%
IMCV
9.1%

Healthcare

IWP
13.5%
IMCV
8.5%

Financial Services

IWP
6.9%
IMCV
15.6%

Communication Services

IWP
4.2%
IMCV
2.5%

Energy

IWP
3.8%
IMCV
12.5%

Utilities

IWP
2.9%
IMCV
10.0%

Consumer Defensive

IWP
1.5%
IMCV
8.9%

Real Estate

IWP
1.4%
IMCV
5.6%

Basic Materials

IWP
0.4%
IMCV
6.5%

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. IMCV — 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

IMCV
IMCV Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
IMCV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMCV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMCV Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
IMCV Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMCV Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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. IMCV - 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 Mid-Cap ETF (IMCV). 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.


IWPIMCVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.80

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.51

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.35

-0.31

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.19

3.32

-3.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.56

12.40

-11.84

IWP vs. IMCV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is 0.17, which is lower than the IMCV Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWP and IMCV, 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


IWPIMCVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.17

1.97

-1.80

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.27

0.53

-0.26

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.57

0.53

+0.04

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.42

0.47

-0.05

Drawdowns

IWP vs. IMCV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, smaller than the maximum IMCV drawdown of -64.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and IMCV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWPIMCVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.92%

-64.74%

+7.82%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.79%

-6.90%

-7.89%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.20%

-18.63%

-6.57%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.62%

-19.87%

-18.75%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.62%

-46.33%

+7.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.08%

-1.07%

-3.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.68%

-8.41%

-1.27%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.08%

1.85%

+3.23%

Volatility

IWP vs. IMCV - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) has a higher volatility of 4.62% compared to iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCV) at 2.35%. This indicates that IWP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IMCV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWPIMCVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.62%

2.35%

+2.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.93%

8.05%

+4.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.71%

11.66%

+5.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.34%

16.64%

+5.70%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.70%

19.66%

+2.04%

IWP vs. IMCV - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCV's 0.06% 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. IMCV - Dividend Comparison

IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than IMCV's 1.94% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IMCV
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF
1.94%2.23%2.36%2.30%2.36%1.86%2.61%2.45%2.61%1.87%2.09%2.29%
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 IMCV have a correlation of 0.67, 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 IMCV (2.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs IMCV's -64.74%.

On 10-year performance, IWP leads with 12.22% vs 10.39% for IMCV. On fees, IMCV is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IMCV has been the lower-risk option at 2.35%. 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 10.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IMCV is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.

IMCV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.33% for IWP.

IWP is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while IMCV is Mid Cap Value Equities. IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index, while IMCV tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Value Index. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWP and 0.06% for IMCV.

IMCV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 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 IMCV

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