IWP vs. SCHG
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Russell Midcap Growth ETF (IWP) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG).
IWP and SCHG are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IWP is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell Midcap Growth Index. It was launched on Jul 17, 2001. SCHG is a passively managed fund by Charles Schwab that tracks the performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Total Return Index. It was launched on Dec 11, 2009. Both IWP and SCHG are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: IWP or SCHG.
Performance
IWP vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWP achieves a 23.08% return, which is significantly lower than SCHG's 30.50% return. Over the past 10 years, IWP has underperformed SCHG with an annualized return of 11.59%, while SCHG has yielded a comparatively higher 16.38% annualized return.
IWP
23.08%
5.13%
14.66%
36.80%
12.17%
11.59%
SCHG
30.50%
2.16%
14.17%
37.63%
19.96%
16.38%
Key characteristics
| IWP | SCHG | |
|---|---|---|
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.37 | 2.24 |
| Sortino Ratio | 3.21 | 2.93 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.41 | 1.41 |
| Calmar Ratio | 1.60 | 3.08 |
| Martin Ratio | 12.40 | 12.26 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.92% | 3.11% |
| Daily Std Dev | 15.30% | 17.00% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.92% | -34.59% |
| Current Drawdown | -3.00% | -3.02% |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IWP vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWP has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHG'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%.
Correlation
The correlation between IWP and SCHG is 0.92, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IWP vs. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Midcap Growth ETF (IWP) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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.
Dividends
IWP vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison
IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, more than SCHG's 0.41% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWP iShares Russell Midcap Growth ETF | 0.42% | 0.54% | 0.77% | 0.30% | 0.38% | 0.60% | 1.02% | 0.78% | 1.47% | 0.98% | 1.03% | 0.79% |
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF | 0.41% | 0.46% | 0.55% | 0.42% | 0.52% | 0.82% | 1.27% | 1.01% | 1.04% | 1.22% | 1.09% | 1.07% |
Drawdowns
IWP vs. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, which is greater than SCHG's maximum drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and SCHG. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IWP vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell Midcap Growth ETF (IWP) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) have volatilities of 5.62% and 5.73%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.