IWR vs. QMOM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) and QMOM (Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWR is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Midcap Index, while QMOM is a Momentum fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. IWR is passively managed, while QMOM is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWR returned 11.55%/yr vs 13.78%/yr for QMOM. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWR charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for QMOM.

Performance

IWR vs. QMOM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWR achieves a 13.02% return, which is significantly lower than QMOM's 24.29% return. Over the past 10 years, IWR has underperformed QMOM with an annualized return of 11.55%, while QMOM has yielded a comparatively higher 13.78% annualized return.

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%

QMOM

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 4.40%
• YTD: 24.29%
• 6M: 24.93%
• 1Y: 30.10%
• 3Y*: 23.16%
• 5Y*: 11.48%
• 10Y*: 13.78%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWR vs. QMOM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWR iShares Russell Midcap ETF	13.02%	10.37%	15.21%	17.05%	-17.48%	22.44%	16.93%	30.23%	-9.10%	18.25%
QMOM Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF	24.29%	2.36%	30.43%	9.50%	-6.99%	-4.06%	61.94%	28.39%	-11.75%	15.92%

Correlation

The correlation between IWR and QMOM is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2016	0.73

The correlation between IWR and QMOM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWR vs. QMOM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWR	QMOM
Industrials	18.4%	37.5%
Technology	17.2%	23.9%
Financial Services	12.5%	1.9%
Consumer Cyclical	11.2%	7.4%
Healthcare	8.7%	8.9%
Energy	7.2%	5.5%
Real Estate	7.0%	-
Utilities	6.1%	2.0%
Basic Materials	4.3%	9.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	1.6%
Communication Services	3.4%	4.2%

Return for Risk

IWR vs. QMOM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IWR

IWR Risk / Return Rank: 53
IWR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
IWR Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
IWR Omega Ratio Rank: 48
IWR Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
IWR Martin Ratio Rank: 61

QMOM

QMOM Risk / Return Rank: 42
QMOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
QMOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
QMOM Omega Ratio Rank: 37
QMOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
QMOM Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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. QMOM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) and Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM). 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.

	IWR	QMOM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.69	1.30	+0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	1.84	+0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.24	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.77	2.39	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.70	8.74	+1.96
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. QMOM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWR Sharpe Ratio is 1.69, which is higher than the QMOM Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWR and QMOM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWR	QMOM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.69	1.30	+0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45	0.48	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60	0.52	+0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	0.51	-0.02

Drawdowns

IWR vs. QMOM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWR drawdown since its inception was -58.78%, which is greater than QMOM's maximum drawdown of -39.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWR and QMOM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWR	QMOM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.78%	-39.13%	-19.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.17%	-12.65%	+4.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.09%	-26.46%	+5.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.18%	-26.82%	+0.64%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.59%	-39.13%	-1.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.66%	+0.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.80%	-12.91%	+5.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.11%	3.45%	-1.34%

Volatility

IWR vs. QMOM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) is 3.16%, while Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM) has a volatility of 8.27%. This indicates that IWR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QMOM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWR	QMOM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.16%	8.27%	-5.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.84%	19.79%	-9.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.36%	23.30%	-9.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.22%	24.19%	-5.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.36%	26.48%	-7.12%

IWR vs. QMOM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWR has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than QMOM's 0.28% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWR vs. QMOM - Dividend Comparison

IWR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, more than QMOM's 0.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
QMOM Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF	0.44%	0.54%	1.40%	0.87%	1.59%	0.12%	0.08%	0.01%	0.05%	0.13%	0.34%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWR and QMOM in my portfolio?

IWR and QMOM have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWR or QMOM?

QMOM has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to IWR (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWR dropped -58.78% vs QMOM's -39.13%.

Which ETF is better, IWR or QMOM?

On 10-year performance, QMOM leads with 13.78% vs 11.55% for IWR. On fees, IWR is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IWR has been the lower-risk option at 3.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWR or QMOM?

Over the 10-year period, QMOM has performed better with a 13.78% return vs 11.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWR or QMOM?

IWR is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for QMOM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWR or QMOM?

IWR has the higher dividend yield at 1.14%, compared with 0.44% for QMOM.

What is the main difference between IWR and QMOM?

IWR is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while QMOM is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for IWR and 0.28% for QMOM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.30), 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.