PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWR vs. FEMG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWR vs. FEMG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) and FEMG (Fidelity Enhanced Mid Cap Growth ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds. IWR is passively managed, while FEMG is actively managed. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWR charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for FEMG.

Performance

IWR vs. FEMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and Fidelity Enhanced Mid Cap Growth ETF (FEMG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

IWR

1D
0.52%
1M
3.28%
YTD
13.02%
6M
12.45%
1Y
22.54%
3Y*
17.59%
5Y*
8.11%
10Y*
11.55%

FEMG

1D
0.91%
1M
3.86%
YTD
—
6M
—
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWR vs. FEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		4.00%
FEMG
Fidelity Enhanced Mid Cap Growth ETF		5.19%

Correlation

The correlation between IWR and FEMG is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

Correlation
Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2026

0.78

IWR vs. FEMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWR
FEMG

Industrials

18.4%
26.5%

Technology

17.2%
24.0%

Financial Services

12.5%
6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

11.2%
17.4%

Healthcare

8.7%
12.6%

Energy

7.2%
3.3%

Real Estate

7.0%
1.8%

Utilities

6.1%
2.9%

Basic Materials

4.3%
0.7%

Consumer Defensive

4.1%
1.4%

Communication Services

3.4%
2.7%

Industrials

IWR
18.4%
FEMG
26.5%

Technology

IWR
17.2%
FEMG
24.0%

Financial Services

IWR
12.5%
FEMG
6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

IWR
11.2%
FEMG
17.4%

Healthcare

IWR
8.7%
FEMG
12.6%

Energy

IWR
7.2%
FEMG
3.3%

Real Estate

IWR
7.0%
FEMG
1.8%

Utilities

IWR
6.1%
FEMG
2.9%

Basic Materials

IWR
4.3%
FEMG
0.7%

Consumer Defensive

IWR
4.1%
FEMG
1.4%

Communication Services

IWR
3.4%
FEMG
2.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Russell Midcap ETF

Fidelity Enhanced Mid Cap Growth ETF

Often compared with IWR:
IWR vs. VOIWR vs. IWDIWR vs. SPMDIWR vs. IWNIWR vs. SCHMIWR vs. VXFIWR vs. REGL
Often compared with FEMG:
FEMG vs. KOMPFEMG vs. JHMMFEMG vs. QQJGFEMG vs. FBTCFEMG vs. PAMCFEMG vs. BCSMFEMG vs. FELG

Return for Risk

IWR vs. FEMG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWR
IWR Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank
FEMG
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.

IWR vs. FEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and Fidelity Enhanced Mid Cap Growth ETF (FEMG). 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.

IWRFEMGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.69

—

—

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.44

—

—

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

—

—

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.77

—

—

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.70

—

—

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWR vs. FEMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

IWRFEMGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.69

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.45

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.60

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.50

5.84

-5.35

Drawdowns

IWR vs. FEMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWR drawdown since its inception was -58.78%, which is greater than FEMG's maximum drawdown of -3.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWR and FEMG.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWRFEMGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.78%

-3.29%

-55.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.17%

—

—

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.09%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.18%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.59%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.28%

+0.28%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.80%

-0.93%

-6.87%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.11%

—

—

Volatility

IWR vs. FEMG - Volatility Comparison

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWRFEMGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.16%

—

—

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.84%

—

—

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.36%

12.25%

+1.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.22%

12.25%

+5.97%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.36%

12.25%

+7.11%

IWR vs. FEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWR has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than FEMG's 0.23% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IWR vs. FEMG - Dividend Comparison

IWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, while FEMG has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FEMG
Fidelity Enhanced Mid Cap Growth ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		1.14%1.29%1.27%1.43%1.59%1.04%1.28%1.43%1.98%1.52%1.72%1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

IWR and FEMG have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IWR is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IWR is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for FEMG.

IWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.14%, compared with 0.00% for FEMG.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWR and 0.23% for FEMG.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWR and FEMG

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