PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IWS vs. FTDS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IWS vs. FTDS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF (IWS) and First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWS achieves a 15.06% return, which is significantly higher than FTDS's 6.54% return. Over the past 10 years, IWS has underperformed FTDS with an annualized return of 10.23%, while FTDS has yielded a comparatively higher 10.75% annualized return.


IWS

1D
-0.04%
1M
3.74%
YTD
15.06%
6M
15.13%
1Y
27.01%
3Y*
17.40%
5Y*
8.37%
10Y*
10.23%

FTDS

1D
-0.21%
1M
-2.16%
YTD
6.54%
6M
6.72%
1Y
18.40%
3Y*
16.04%
5Y*
6.32%
10Y*
10.75%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWS vs. FTDS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWS
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF
15.06%10.82%12.91%12.52%-12.29%28.10%4.83%26.73%-12.43%13.14%
FTDS
First Trust Dividend Strength ETF
6.54%13.64%11.12%11.75%-13.54%24.79%14.16%24.29%-10.35%20.07%

Correlation

The correlation between IWS and FTDS is 0.79, 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

0.79

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

0.86

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

0.87

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

0.76

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 29, 2004

0.66

The correlation between IWS and FTDS shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (all time) to 0.87 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWS vs. FTDS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWS
FTDS

Industrials

16.7%
19.8%

Technology

16.5%
9.4%

Financial Services

14.1%
27.9%

Real Estate

8.6%

-

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
3.4%

Energy

8.1%
20.2%

Healthcare

7.3%
9.4%

Utilities

7.0%

-

Basic Materials

5.4%
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

4.8%
1.9%

Communication Services

3.1%

-

Industrials

IWS
16.7%
FTDS
19.8%

Technology

IWS
16.5%
FTDS
9.4%

Financial Services

IWS
14.1%
FTDS
27.9%

Real Estate

IWS
8.6%
FTDS

-

Consumer Cyclical

IWS
8.4%
FTDS
3.4%

Energy

IWS
8.1%
FTDS
20.2%

Healthcare

IWS
7.3%
FTDS
9.4%

Utilities

IWS
7.0%
FTDS

-

Basic Materials

IWS
5.4%
FTDS
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

IWS
4.8%
FTDS
1.9%

Communication Services

IWS
3.1%
FTDS

-

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

IWS vs. FTDS — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWS
IWS Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
IWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWS Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
IWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWS Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank

FTDS
FTDS Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
FTDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FTDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
FTDS Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
FTDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
FTDS Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
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.

IWS vs. FTDS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF (IWS) and First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS). 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.


IWSFTDSDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.06

1.44

+0.63

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.95

2.19

+0.76

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.25

+0.11

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.60

2.81

+0.79

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

13.59

7.56

+6.03

IWS vs. FTDS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWS Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is higher than the FTDS Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWS and FTDS, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IWSFTDSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.06

1.44

+0.63

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.49

0.36

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.53

0.54

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.42

0.32

+0.10

Drawdowns

IWS vs. FTDS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWS drawdown since its inception was -62.40%, which is greater than FTDS's maximum drawdown of -56.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWS and FTDS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWSFTDSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-62.40%

-56.53%

-5.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.53%

-6.57%

-0.96%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.57%

-18.04%

-2.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.23%

-23.35%

+2.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.83%

-42.47%

-1.36%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.04%

-4.46%

+4.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.02%

-9.87%

+1.85%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.99%

2.44%

-0.45%

Volatility

IWS vs. FTDS - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF (IWS) and First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS) have volatilities of 3.40% and 3.48%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWSFTDSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.40%

3.48%

-0.08%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.57%

8.87%

+0.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.19%

12.92%

+0.27%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.30%

17.65%

-0.35%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.36%

20.14%

-0.78%

IWS vs. FTDS - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWS has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than FTDS's 0.70% expense ratio.


Dividends

IWS vs. FTDS - Dividend Comparison

IWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%, less than FTDS's 1.66% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FTDS
First Trust Dividend Strength ETF
1.66%1.59%2.05%2.15%2.31%0.72%0.99%1.13%1.14%0.79%1.24%0.95%
IWS
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF
1.34%1.53%1.50%1.76%1.93%1.39%1.87%1.97%2.53%1.96%2.10%2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions


IWS and FTDS have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FTDS has higher volatility (3.48%) compared to IWS (3.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWS dropped -62.40% vs FTDS's -56.53%.

On 10-year performance, FTDS leads with 10.75% vs 10.23% for IWS. On fees, IWS is cheaper at 0.23% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FTDS has performed better with a 10.75% return vs 10.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWS is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FTDS.

FTDS has the higher dividend yield at 1.66%, compared with 1.34% for IWS.

IWS is categorized as Mid Cap Value Equities, while FTDS is Mid Cap Blend Equities. IWS tracks Russell Midcap Value Index, while FTDS tracks Dividend Strength Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWS and 0.70% for FTDS.

IWS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs 1.44), 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 IWS and FTDS

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