IWR vs. IMCG
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG).
IWR and IMCG are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IWR is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell Midcap Index. It was launched on Jul 17, 2001. IMCG is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index. It was launched on Jun 28, 2004. Both IWR and IMCG 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: IWR or IMCG.
Key characteristics
| IWR | IMCG | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 20.30% | 21.53% |
| 1Y Return | 38.81% | 40.32% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 4.43% | 1.74% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 11.65% | 14.26% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 10.14% | 12.34% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.76 | 2.71 |
| Sortino Ratio | 3.84 | 3.72 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.48 | 1.46 |
| Calmar Ratio | 2.05 | 1.54 |
| Martin Ratio | 16.40 | 14.42 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.28% | 2.72% |
| Daily Std Dev | 13.56% | 14.48% |
| Max Drawdown | -58.79% | -58.96% |
| Current Drawdown | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWR and IMCG 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.
Performance
IWR vs. IMCG - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, IWR achieves a 20.30% return, which is significantly lower than IMCG's 21.53% return. Over the past 10 years, IWR has underperformed IMCG with an annualized return of 10.14%, while IMCG has yielded a comparatively higher 12.34% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IWR vs. IMCG - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWR has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCG's 0.06% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IWR vs. IMCG - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG). 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
IWR vs. IMCG - Dividend Comparison
IWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, more than IMCG's 0.77% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWR iShares Russell Midcap ETF | 1.23% | 1.43% | 1.59% | 1.05% | 1.28% | 1.43% | 1.98% | 1.52% | 1.72% | 1.59% | 1.45% | 1.31% |
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF | 0.77% | 0.85% | 0.91% | 0.41% | 0.09% | 0.30% | 0.35% | 0.45% | 0.52% | 0.38% | 0.60% | 0.36% |
Drawdowns
IWR vs. IMCG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWR drawdown since its inception was -58.79%, roughly equal to the maximum IMCG drawdown of -58.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWR and IMCG. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IWR vs. IMCG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) is 4.05%, while iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) has a volatility of 4.45%. This indicates that IWR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IMCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.