PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IWR vs. IMCB

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) and IMCB (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds from iShares - IWR tracks the Russell Midcap Index while IMCB tracks the IMCB-US - Morningstar U.S. Mid Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWR returned 11.43%/yr vs 11.27%/yr for IMCB. Their 0.97 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. IWR charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for IMCB.

Performance

IWR vs. IMCB - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWR achieves a 14.55% return, which is significantly lower than IMCB's 17.87% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWR having a 11.43% annualized return and IMCB not far behind at 11.27%.

IWR

1D
-0.28%
1M
-0.59%
6M
11.19%
YTD
14.55%
1Y
20.25%
3Y*
14.75%
5Y*
8.04%
10Y*
11.43%
ALL TIME*
9.95%

IMCB

1D
-0.25%
1M
-0.01%
6M
14.48%
YTD
17.87%
1Y
23.21%
3Y*
15.79%
5Y*
9.14%
10Y*
11.27%
ALL TIME*
10.39%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IMCB

iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF
$2.94M$3.89M$3.49M

IWR

iShares Russell Midcap ETF
$186.41M$266.84M$222.00M

IWR vs. IMCB - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		14.55%10.37%15.21%17.05%-17.48%22.44%16.93%30.23%-9.10%18.25%
IMCB
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF		17.87%10.25%15.10%16.37%-16.09%22.81%13.35%31.49%-11.53%19.70%

Correlation

The correlation between IWR and IMCB is 0.98 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.98

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.99

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.99

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.98

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2004

0.97

The correlation between IWR and IMCB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWR vs. IMCB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWR
IMCB

Technology

18.3%
17.9%

Industrials

17.2%
18.4%

Financial Services

12.6%
14.1%

Healthcare

10.9%
8.8%

Consumer Cyclical

10.2%
9.7%

Real Estate

6.9%
4.5%

Utilities

6.0%
6.5%

Energy

5.8%
7.0%

Consumer Defensive

4.5%
5.1%

Basic Materials

4.2%
5.5%

Communication Services

3.5%
2.4%

Technology

IWR
18.3%
IMCB
17.9%

Industrials

IWR
17.2%
IMCB
18.4%

Financial Services

IWR
12.6%
IMCB
14.1%

Healthcare

IWR
10.9%
IMCB
8.8%

Consumer Cyclical

IWR
10.2%
IMCB
9.7%

Real Estate

IWR
6.9%
IMCB
4.5%

Utilities

IWR
6.0%
IMCB
6.5%

Energy

IWR
5.8%
IMCB
7.0%

Consumer Defensive

IWR
4.5%
IMCB
5.1%

Basic Materials

IWR
4.2%
IMCB
5.5%

Communication Services

IWR
3.5%
IMCB
2.4%

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

iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF

Often compared with IWR:
IWR vs. VOIWR vs. IWDIWR vs. SPMDIWR vs. IWNIWR vs. SCHMIWR vs. VXFIWR vs. REGL
Often compared with IMCB:
IMCB vs. IMCGIMCB vs. FSMDXIMCB vs. BKMCIMCB vs. SPMDIMCB vs. VOIMCB vs. IJHIMCB vs. ISCB

Return for Risk

IWR vs. IMCB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
IWR
IWR Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
IMCB
IMCB Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
IMCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMCB Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
IMCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMCB Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IWR vs. IMCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB). 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.

IWRIMCBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.37
1.65

-0.28

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.00
2.35

-0.35

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.29

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.28

2.68

-0.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.85

10.73

-1.87

IWR vs. IMCB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWR Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is comparable to the IMCB Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWR and IMCB, 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...

Drawdowns

IWR vs. IMCB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWR drawdown since its inception was -58.78%, roughly equal to the maximum IMCB drawdown of -58.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWR and IMCB.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWRIMCBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.78%

-58.80%

+0.02%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.17%

-8.05%

-0.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.09%

-19.80%

-1.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.18%

-25.15%

-1.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.59%

-40.99%

+0.40%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.93%

-0.91%

-0.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.76%

-7.68%

-0.08%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.10%

2.01%

+0.09%

Volatility

IWR vs. IMCB - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) has a higher volatility of 2.48% compared to iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) at 2.32%. This indicates that IWR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IMCB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWRIMCBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.48%

2.32%

+0.16%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.17%

9.96%

+0.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.67%

13.10%

+0.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.22%

17.56%

+0.66%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.31%

19.60%

-0.29%

IWR vs. IMCB - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWR has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCB'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%.

Dividends

IWR vs. IMCB - Dividend Comparison

IWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, less than IMCB's 1.21% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IMCB
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF		1.21%1.42%1.43%1.55%1.70%1.08%1.12%1.32%1.80%1.31%1.79%1.47%
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		1.16%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

With a correlation of 0.98, IWR and IMCB 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.

IWR has higher volatility (2.48%) compared to IMCB (2.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWR dropped -58.78% vs IMCB's -58.80%.

On 10-year performance, IWR leads with 11.43% vs 11.27% for IMCB. On fees, IMCB is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IMCB has been the lower-risk option at 2.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWR has performed better with a 11.43% return vs 11.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IMCB is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWR.

IMCB has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 1.16% for IWR.

IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index, while IMCB tracks IMCB-US - Morningstar U.S. Mid Cap Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWR and 0.04% for IMCB.

IMCB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.65 vs 1.36), 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 IWR and IMCB

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