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

Performance

IWP vs. VFMV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV). 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 VFMV's 7.46% 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%

VFMV

1D
-0.49%
1M
0.03%
YTD
7.46%
6M
7.72%
1Y
11.60%
3Y*
13.97%
5Y*
9.52%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWP vs. VFMV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
1.66%8.45%21.86%25.70%-26.90%12.60%35.25%35.04%-7.78%
VFMV
Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF
7.46%10.52%16.91%8.86%-5.73%20.75%-0.19%27.26%-1.10%

Correlation

The correlation between IWP and VFMV is 0.66, 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

0.66

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

0.69

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

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 16, 2018

0.76

The correlation between IWP and VFMV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWP vs. VFMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWP
VFMV

Industrials

24.2%
10.1%

Consumer Cyclical

21.1%
6.9%

Technology

20.0%
25.1%

Healthcare

13.5%
10.1%

Financial Services

6.9%
10.6%

Communication Services

4.2%
10.7%

Energy

3.8%
3.9%

Utilities

2.9%
6.7%

Consumer Defensive

1.5%
9.5%

Real Estate

1.4%
6.4%

Basic Materials

0.4%

-

Industrials

IWP
24.2%
VFMV
10.1%

Consumer Cyclical

IWP
21.1%
VFMV
6.9%

Technology

IWP
20.0%
VFMV
25.1%

Healthcare

IWP
13.5%
VFMV
10.1%

Financial Services

IWP
6.9%
VFMV
10.6%

Communication Services

IWP
4.2%
VFMV
10.7%

Energy

IWP
3.8%
VFMV
3.9%

Utilities

IWP
2.9%
VFMV
6.7%

Consumer Defensive

IWP
1.5%
VFMV
9.5%

Real Estate

IWP
1.4%
VFMV
6.4%

Basic Materials

IWP
0.4%
VFMV

-

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. VFMV — 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

VFMV
VFMV Risk / Return Rank: 4343
Overall Rank
VFMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VFMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 4242
Sortino Ratio Rank
VFMV Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
VFMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
VFMV Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
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. VFMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) and Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV). 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.


IWPVFMVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.15

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.58

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.23

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.19

1.94

-1.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.56

7.57

-7.02

IWP vs. VFMV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is 0.17, which is lower than the VFMV Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWP and VFMV, 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


IWPVFMVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.17

1.32

-1.15

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.27

0.81

-0.54

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.57

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.42

0.68

-0.26

Drawdowns

IWP vs. VFMV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, which is greater than VFMV's maximum drawdown of -33.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and VFMV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWPVFMVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.92%

-33.64%

-23.28%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.79%

-6.00%

-8.79%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.20%

-10.35%

-14.85%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.62%

-15.41%

-23.21%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.08%

-2.00%

-2.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.68%

-3.63%

-6.05%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.08%

1.53%

+3.55%

Volatility

IWP vs. VFMV - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) has a higher volatility of 4.62% compared to Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV) at 2.21%. This indicates that IWP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VFMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWPVFMVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.62%

2.21%

+2.41%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.93%

6.37%

+6.56%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.71%

8.83%

+7.88%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.34%

11.75%

+10.59%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.70%

14.25%

+7.45%

IWP vs. VFMV - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than VFMV's 0.13% 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. VFMV - Dividend Comparison

IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than VFMV's 1.95% 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%
VFMV
Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF
1.95%2.12%1.46%2.20%2.08%1.31%2.14%2.43%2.29%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWP and VFMV have a correlation of 0.66, 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 VFMV (2.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs VFMV's -33.64%.

On 5-year performance, VFMV leads with 9.52% vs 5.99% for IWP. On fees, VFMV is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, VFMV has been the lower-risk option at 2.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, VFMV has performed better with a 9.52% return vs 5.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

VFMV is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.

VFMV has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 0.33% for IWP.

IWP is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while VFMV is Mid Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWP and 0.13% for VFMV.

VFMV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 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 VFMV

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