IWV vs. GXLC
IWV (iShares Russell 3000 ETF) and GXLC (Global X U.S. 500 ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - IWV tracks the Russell 3000 Index while GXLC tracks the Solactive GBS United States 500 Index. Both are passively managed. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IWV charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.02%/yr for GXLC.
Performance
IWV vs. GXLC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with IWV having a 10.01% return and GXLC slightly lower at 9.76%.
IWV
- 1D
- -0.27%
- 1M
- 0.53%
- YTD
- 10.01%
- 6M
- 9.26%
- 1Y
- 26.55%
- 3Y*
- 20.91%
- 5Y*
- 12.24%
- 10Y*
- 15.13%
GXLC
- 1D
- -0.47%
- 1M
- 0.20%
- YTD
- 9.76%
- 6M
- 9.33%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWV vs. GXLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IWV iShares Russell 3000 ETF | 10.01% | 2.70% |
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF | 9.76% | 3.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWV and GXLC 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2025 | 0.99 |
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
IWV vs. GXLC — Risk / Return Rank
IWV
GXLC
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IWV vs. GXLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 3000 ETF (IWV) and Global X U.S. 500 ETF (GXLC). 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.
| IWV | GXLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.00 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.42 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWV vs. GXLC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWV drawdown since its inception was -55.61%, which is greater than GXLC's maximum drawdown of -9.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWV and GXLC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWV | GXLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.61% | -9.08% | -46.53% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.89% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.28% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.11% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -35.22% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.46% | -1.76% | +0.30% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.57% | -1.53% | -9.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.98% | — | — |
Volatility
IWV vs. GXLC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWV | GXLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.65% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.89% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.67% | 13.79% | -1.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.32% | 13.79% | +3.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.45% | 13.79% | +4.66% |
IWV vs. GXLC - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWV has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than GXLC's 0.02% 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
IWV vs. GXLC - Dividend Comparison
IWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, more than GXLC's 0.64% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF | 0.64% | 0.30% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWV iShares Russell 3000 ETF | 0.88% | 0.96% | 1.08% | 1.30% | 1.56% | 1.04% | 1.30% | 1.69% | 1.97% | 1.58% | 1.79% | 1.99% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.99, IWV and GXLC 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.
On fees, GXLC is cheaper at 0.02% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GXLC is cheaper with a 0.02% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for IWV.
IWV has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.64% for GXLC.
IWV tracks Russell 3000 Index, while GXLC tracks Solactive GBS United States 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for IWV and 0.02% for GXLC.
Find the right allocation for IWV and GXLC
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