IWP vs. NUMG

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

IWP (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and NUMG (Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds - IWP tracks the Russell Midcap Growth Index while NUMG tracks the MSCI TIAA ESG USA Mid Cap Growth. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWP returned 5.60%/yr vs -0.21%/yr for NUMG. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWP charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for NUMG.

Performance

IWP vs. NUMG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWP achieves a 3.54% return, which is significantly higher than NUMG's -1.45% return.

IWP

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 0.66%
• 6M: 0.28%
• YTD: 3.54%
• 1Y: 2.24%
• 3Y*: 13.18%
• 5Y*: 5.60%
• 10Y*: 12.06%

NUMG

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 2.55%
• 6M: -3.26%
• YTD: -1.45%
• 1Y: -1.89%
• 3Y*: 5.67%
• 5Y*: -0.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

IWP vs. NUMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	3.54%	8.45%	21.86%	25.70%	-26.90%	12.60%	35.25%	35.04%	-4.89%	24.93%
NUMG Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF	-1.45%	0.78%	11.99%	20.47%	-28.31%	12.27%	45.73%	34.87%	-5.79%	19.00%

Correlation

The correlation between IWP and NUMG is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2016	0.92

The correlation between IWP and NUMG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWP vs. NUMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWP	NUMG
Technology	33.5%	33.4%
Industrials	21.7%	24.6%
Healthcare	13.0%	13.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	10.6%
Energy	4.0%	-
Financial Services	3.6%	6.4%
Communication Services	3.4%	5.2%
Utilities	2.5%	1.2%
Real Estate	2.2%	3.1%
Basic Materials	1.7%	2.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	-

Return for Risk

IWP vs. NUMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWP

IWP Risk / Return Rank: 11
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 11
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 12

NUMG

NUMG Risk / Return Rank: 8
NUMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
NUMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
NUMG Omega Ratio Rank: 8
NUMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
NUMG Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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. NUMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF (NUMG). 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	NUMG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.13	-0.10	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.31	-0.01	+0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.03	1.00	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.15	-0.10	+0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.44	-0.24	+0.68

IWP vs. NUMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is 0.13, which is higher than the NUMG Sharpe Ratio of -0.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWP and NUMG, 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. NUMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, which is greater than NUMG's maximum drawdown of -38.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and NUMG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWP	NUMG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.92%	-38.85%	-18.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.79%	-19.71%	+4.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.20%	-26.58%	+1.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.62%	-38.85%	+0.23%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.62%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.31%	-10.29%	+6.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.65%	-11.37%	+1.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.14%	7.90%	-2.76%

Volatility

IWP vs. NUMG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) has a higher volatility of 5.19% compared to Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF (NUMG) at 4.70%. This indicates that IWP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NUMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWP	NUMG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.19%	4.70%	+0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.69%	15.11%	-1.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.31%	18.79%	-1.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.45%	22.98%	-0.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.69%	21.83%	-0.14%

IWP vs. NUMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than NUMG's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWP vs. NUMG - Dividend Comparison

IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, more than NUMG's 0.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
NUMG Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.06%	0.18%	0.18%	12.76%	3.82%	0.27%	5.14%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWP and NUMG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, IWP and NUMG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, IWP or NUMG?

IWP has higher volatility (5.19%) compared to NUMG (4.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs NUMG's -38.85%.

Which ETF is better, IWP or NUMG?

On 5-year performance, IWP leads with 5.60% vs -0.21% for NUMG. On fees, IWP is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, NUMG has been the lower-risk option at 4.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWP or NUMG?

Over the 5-year period, IWP has performed better with a 5.60% return vs -0.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWP or NUMG?

IWP is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for NUMG.

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

IWP has the higher dividend yield at 0.35%, compared with 0.01% for NUMG.

What is the main difference between IWP and NUMG?

IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index, while NUMG tracks MSCI TIAA ESG USA Mid Cap Growth. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Nuveen. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWP and 0.30% for NUMG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.13 vs -0.10), 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.