PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IWR vs. IMCG

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) and IMCG (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds from iShares - IWR tracks the Russell Midcap Index while IMCG tracks the Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWR returned 12.03%/yr vs 15.00%/yr for IMCG. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWR charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for IMCG.

Performance

IWR vs. IMCG - 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 Growth ETF (IMCG). 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 13.93% return, which is significantly lower than IMCG's 22.43% return. Over the past 10 years, IWR has underperformed IMCG with an annualized return of 12.03%, while IMCG has yielded a comparatively higher 15.00% annualized return.

IWR

1D
0.52%
1M
3.28%
YTD
13.93%
6M
12.06%
1Y
23.42%
3Y*
17.38%
5Y*
8.30%
10Y*
12.03%

IMCG

1D
0.49%
1M
6.84%
YTD
22.43%
6M
20.06%
1Y
26.63%
3Y*
19.34%
5Y*
8.31%
10Y*
15.00%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWR vs. IMCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWR
iShares Russell Midcap ETF		13.93%10.37%15.21%17.05%-17.48%22.44%16.93%30.23%-9.10%18.25%
IMCG
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF		22.43%6.55%18.14%20.73%-25.79%15.39%45.64%35.70%-3.68%25.57%

Correlation

The correlation between IWR and IMCG is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.93

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

0.95

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

0.96

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.92

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

0.92

The correlation between IWR and IMCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWR vs. IMCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWR
IMCG

Technology

19.6%
34.9%

Industrials

18.1%
25.3%

Financial Services

12.1%
8.6%

Consumer Cyclical

11.1%
9.1%

Healthcare

8.7%
6.9%

Real Estate

6.8%
3.1%

Energy

6.5%
1.7%

Utilities

5.7%
2.5%

Basic Materials

4.2%
4.3%

Consumer Defensive

3.9%
1.2%

Communication Services

3.3%
2.4%

Technology

IWR
19.6%
IMCG
34.9%

Industrials

IWR
18.1%
IMCG
25.3%

Financial Services

IWR
12.1%
IMCG
8.6%

Consumer Cyclical

IWR
11.1%
IMCG
9.1%

Healthcare

IWR
8.7%
IMCG
6.9%

Real Estate

IWR
6.8%
IMCG
3.1%

Energy

IWR
6.5%
IMCG
1.7%

Utilities

IWR
5.7%
IMCG
2.5%

Basic Materials

IWR
4.2%
IMCG
4.3%

Consumer Defensive

IWR
3.9%
IMCG
1.2%

Communication Services

IWR
3.3%
IMCG
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 Growth ETF

Often compared with IWR:
IWR vs. VOIWR vs. IWDIWR vs. SPMDIWR vs. IWNIWR vs. SCHMIWR vs. VXFIWR vs. REGL
Often compared with IMCG:
IMCG vs. VOTIMCG vs. IWPIMCG vs. SCHMIMCG vs. MDYGIMCG vs. XMHQIMCG vs. IJKIMCG vs. IMCB

Return for Risk

IWR vs. IMCG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWR
IWR Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
IMCG
IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
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.

IWR vs. IMCG - 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 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.

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.

IWRIMCGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.71
1.60

+0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.44
2.27

+0.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.28

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.88

2.63

+0.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.02

10.03

+0.99

IWR vs. IMCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWR Sharpe Ratio is 1.71, which is comparable to the IMCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWR and IMCG, 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. IMCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWR drawdown since its inception was -58.78%, 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWRIMCGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.78%

-58.96%

+0.18%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.17%

-10.17%

+2.00%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.09%

-21.92%

+0.83%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.18%

-35.08%

+8.90%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.59%

-35.08%

-5.51%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.30%

0.00%

-0.30%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.79%

-9.21%

+1.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.13%

2.66%

-0.53%

Volatility

IWR vs. IMCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) is 4.41%, while iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) has a volatility of 7.22%. 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWRIMCGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.41%

7.22%

-2.81%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.38%

13.99%

-3.61%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.80%

16.73%

-2.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.28%

20.36%

-2.08%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.40%

20.61%

-1.21%

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%.

Dividends

IWR vs. IMCG - Dividend Comparison

IWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, more than IMCG's 0.61% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IMCG
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF		0.61%0.78%0.78%0.85%0.91%0.41%0.09%0.30%0.35%0.45%0.52%0.38%
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 0.93, IWR and IMCG 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.

IMCG has higher volatility (7.22%) compared to IWR (4.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWR dropped -58.78% vs IMCG's -58.96%.

On 10-year performance, IMCG leads with 15.00% vs 12.03% for IWR. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IWR has been the lower-risk option at 4.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IMCG has performed better with a 15.00% return vs 12.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IMCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IWR.

IWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.16%, compared with 0.61% for IMCG.

IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index, while IMCG tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWR and 0.06% for IMCG.

IWR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 1.60), 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 IMCG

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