IWR vs. JHMM
IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) and JHMM (John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds - IWR tracks the Russell Midcap Index while JHMM tracks the John Hancock Dimensional Mid Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWR returned 12.41%/yr vs 12.71%/yr for JHMM. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IWR charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for JHMM.
Performance
IWR vs. JHMM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with IWR having a 14.90% return and JHMM slightly lower at 14.37%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IWR having a 12.41% annualized return and JHMM not far ahead at 12.71%.
IWR
- 1D
- 1.35%
- 1M
- 3.20%
- YTD
- 14.90%
- 6M
- 13.08%
- 1Y
- 23.04%
- 3Y*
- 17.47%
- 5Y*
- 8.17%
- 10Y*
- 12.41%
JHMM
- 1D
- 1.01%
- 1M
- 2.20%
- YTD
- 14.37%
- 6M
- 12.33%
- 1Y
- 25.45%
- 3Y*
- 16.95%
- 5Y*
- 8.58%
- 10Y*
- 12.71%
IWR vs. JHMM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWR iShares Russell Midcap ETF | 14.90% | 10.37% | 15.21% | 17.05% | -17.48% | 22.44% | 16.93% | 30.23% | -9.10% | 18.25% |
JHMM John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF | 14.37% | 10.73% | 14.61% | 14.53% | -15.30% | 24.54% | 16.22% | 30.01% | -9.57% | 19.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWR and JHMM is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.99 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2015 | 0.98 |
The correlation between IWR and JHMM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.
IWR vs. JHMM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IWR
JHMM
Technology
Industrials
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Real Estate
Energy
Utilities
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Technology
IWR
JHMM
Industrials
IWR
JHMM
Financial Services
IWR
JHMM
Consumer Cyclical
IWR
JHMM
Healthcare
IWR
JHMM
Real Estate
IWR
JHMM
Energy
IWR
JHMM
Utilities
IWR
JHMM
Basic Materials
IWR
JHMM
Consumer Defensive
IWR
JHMM
Communication Services
IWR
JHMM
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
IWR vs. JHMM — Risk / Return Rank
IWR
JHMM
IWR vs. JHMM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF (JHMM). 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.
| IWR | JHMM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.10 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.14 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.31 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.83 | 2.96 | -0.12 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.84 | 11.38 | -0.54 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWR vs. JHMM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWR drawdown since its inception was -58.78%, which is greater than JHMM's maximum drawdown of -40.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWR and JHMM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWR | JHMM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.78% | -40.71% | -18.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.17% | -8.64% | +0.47% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.09% | -21.88% | +0.79% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.18% | -24.10% | -2.08% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.59% | -40.71% | +0.12% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.79% | -5.41% | -2.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.13% | 2.24% | -0.11% |
Volatility
IWR vs. JHMM - Volatility Comparison
iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) has a higher volatility of 4.67% compared to John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF (JHMM) at 4.41%. This indicates that IWR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than JHMM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWR | JHMM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.67% | 4.41% | +0.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.51% | 10.90% | -0.39% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.83% | 14.44% | -0.61% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.30% | 18.36% | -0.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.36% | 19.58% | -0.22% |
IWR vs. JHMM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWR has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than JHMM's 0.42% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWR vs. JHMM - Dividend Comparison
IWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.15%, more than JHMM's 0.85% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWR iShares Russell Midcap ETF | 1.15% | 1.29% | 1.27% | 1.43% | 1.59% | 1.04% | 1.28% | 1.43% | 1.98% | 1.52% | 1.72% | 1.59% |
JHMM John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF | 0.85% | 0.98% | 1.01% | 1.17% | 1.16% | 0.72% | 1.04% | 1.02% | 1.36% | 0.90% | 1.15% | 0.33% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.99, IWR and JHMM 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 (4.67%) compared to JHMM (4.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWR dropped -58.78% vs JHMM's -40.71%.
On 10-year performance, JHMM leads with 12.71% vs 12.41% for IWR. On fees, IWR is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, JHMM 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, JHMM has performed better with a 12.71% return vs 12.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWR is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.42% for JHMM.
IWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.15%, compared with 0.85% for JHMM.
IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index, while JHMM tracks John Hancock Dimensional Mid Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Manulife. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWR and 0.42% for JHMM.
JHMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.68), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWR and JHMM
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