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

Performance

IWP vs. QQJG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG). 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 3.75% return, which is significantly higher than QQJG's 1.44% return.


IWP

1D
-1.05%
1M
4.11%
YTD
3.75%
6M
2.84%
1Y
5.63%
3Y*
15.88%
5Y*
6.59%
10Y*
12.40%

QQJG

1D
0.00%
1M
0.00%
YTD
1.44%
6M
1.92%
1Y
18.92%
3Y*
14.09%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWP vs. QQJG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
3.75%8.45%21.86%25.70%-26.90%-2.09%
QQJG
Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF
1.44%18.05%14.67%17.20%-27.69%0.91%

Correlation

The correlation between IWP and QQJG is 0.65, 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

0.65

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

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2021

0.88

Over the past year, the correlation between IWP and QQJG has dropped to 0.65 - well below their long-term average of 0.88, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IWP vs. QQJG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWP
QQJG

Industrials

24.2%
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

21.1%
14.3%

Technology

20.0%
44.5%

Healthcare

13.5%
18.2%

Financial Services

6.9%
0.1%

Communication Services

4.2%
6.2%

Energy

3.8%
1.6%

Utilities

2.9%

-

Consumer Defensive

1.5%
3.4%

Real Estate

1.4%

-

Basic Materials

0.4%
2.5%

Industrials

IWP
24.2%
QQJG
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

IWP
21.1%
QQJG
14.3%

Technology

IWP
20.0%
QQJG
44.5%

Healthcare

IWP
13.5%
QQJG
18.2%

Financial Services

IWP
6.9%
QQJG
0.1%

Communication Services

IWP
4.2%
QQJG
6.2%

Energy

IWP
3.8%
QQJG
1.6%

Utilities

IWP
2.9%
QQJG

-

Consumer Defensive

IWP
1.5%
QQJG
3.4%

Real Estate

IWP
1.4%
QQJG

-

Basic Materials

IWP
0.4%
QQJG
2.5%

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. QQJG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWP
IWP Risk / Return Rank: 1313
Overall Rank
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 1414
Martin Ratio Rank

QQJG
QQJG Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
QQJG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQJG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQJG Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
QQJG Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQJG Martin Ratio Rank: 5353
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. QQJG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG). 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.


IWPQQJGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.29

-0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.38

2.42

-2.03

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.12

8.87

-7.75

IWP vs. QQJG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is 0.34, which is lower than the QQJG Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWP and QQJG, 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


IWPQQJGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.34

1.37

-1.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.57

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.17

+0.26

Drawdowns

IWP vs. QQJG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, which is greater than QQJG's maximum drawdown of -36.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and QQJG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWPQQJGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.92%

-36.76%

-20.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.79%

-7.93%

-6.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.20%

-23.48%

-1.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.62%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.10%

-2.09%

-0.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.68%

-15.32%

+5.64%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.06%

2.15%

+2.91%

Volatility

IWP vs. QQJG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) has a higher volatility of 3.73% compared to Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG) at 0.00%. This indicates that IWP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QQJG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWPQQJGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.73%

0.00%

+3.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.62%

8.32%

+4.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.50%

14.05%

+2.45%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.31%

21.70%

+0.61%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.67%

21.70%

-0.03%

IWP vs. QQJG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than QQJG's 0.20% 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. QQJG - Dividend Comparison

IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than QQJG's 13.86% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
QQJG
Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF
13.86%0.68%0.65%0.54%0.70%0.08%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWP and QQJG have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWP has higher volatility (3.73%) compared to QQJG (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs QQJG's -36.76%.

On 3-year performance, IWP leads with 15.88% vs 14.09% for QQJG. On fees, QQJG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, QQJG has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, IWP has performed better with a 15.88% return vs 14.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QQJG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.

QQJG has the higher dividend yield at 13.86%, compared with 0.33% for IWP.

IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index, while QQJG tracks Nasdaq Next Generation 100 ESG Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWP and 0.20% for QQJG.

QQJG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 vs 0.34), 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 QQJG

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