JHMM vs. IWR
JHMM (John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF) and IWR (iShares Russell Midcap ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds - JHMM tracks the John Hancock Dimensional Mid Cap Index while IWR tracks the Russell Midcap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, JHMM returned 12.21%/yr vs 11.90%/yr for IWR. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. JHMM charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWR.
Performance
JHMM vs. IWR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with JHMM having a 12.48% return and IWR slightly higher at 12.62%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with JHMM having a 12.21% annualized return and IWR not far behind at 11.90%.
JHMM
- 1D
- -0.78%
- 1M
- 1.45%
- YTD
- 12.48%
- 6M
- 10.73%
- 1Y
- 23.57%
- 3Y*
- 16.58%
- 5Y*
- 8.41%
- 10Y*
- 12.21%
IWR
- 1D
- -1.15%
- 1M
- 2.08%
- YTD
- 12.62%
- 6M
- 11.09%
- 1Y
- 20.95%
- 3Y*
- 16.93%
- 5Y*
- 7.89%
- 10Y*
- 11.90%
JHMM vs. IWR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JHMM John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF | 12.48% | 10.73% | 14.61% | 14.53% | -15.30% | 24.54% | 16.22% | 30.01% | -9.57% | 19.96% |
IWR iShares Russell Midcap ETF | 12.62% | 10.37% | 15.21% | 17.05% | -17.48% | 22.44% | 16.93% | 30.23% | -9.10% | 18.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between JHMM and IWR 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 JHMM and IWR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.
JHMM vs. IWR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
JHMM
IWR
Technology
Industrials
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Real Estate
Utilities
Energy
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Technology
JHMM
IWR
Industrials
JHMM
IWR
Financial Services
JHMM
IWR
Consumer Cyclical
JHMM
IWR
Healthcare
JHMM
IWR
Real Estate
JHMM
IWR
Utilities
JHMM
IWR
Energy
JHMM
IWR
Basic Materials
JHMM
IWR
Consumer Defensive
JHMM
IWR
Communication Services
JHMM
IWR
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
JHMM vs. IWR — Risk / Return Rank
JHMM
IWR
JHMM vs. IWR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF (JHMM) and iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR). 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.
| JHMM | IWR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.12 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.17 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.27 | +0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.74 | 2.58 | +0.16 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.54 | 9.85 | +0.68 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
JHMM vs. IWR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum JHMM drawdown since its inception was -40.71%, smaller than the maximum IWR drawdown of -58.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JHMM and IWR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| JHMM | IWR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -40.71% | -58.78% | +18.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.64% | -8.17% | -0.47% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.88% | -21.09% | -0.79% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.10% | -26.18% | +2.08% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.71% | -40.59% | -0.12% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.27% | -1.45% | +0.18% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.41% | -7.79% | +2.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.24% | 2.13% | +0.11% |
Volatility
JHMM vs. IWR - Volatility Comparison
John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF (JHMM) and iShares Russell Midcap ETF (IWR) have volatilities of 4.42% and 4.61%, 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
| JHMM | IWR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.42% | 4.61% | -0.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.89% | 10.46% | +0.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.46% | 13.83% | +0.63% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.36% | 18.29% | +0.07% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.59% | 19.36% | +0.23% |
JHMM vs. IWR - Expense Ratio Comparison
JHMM has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is higher than IWR's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
JHMM vs. IWR - Dividend Comparison
JHMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than IWR's 1.18% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWR iShares Russell Midcap ETF | 1.18% | 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 | 0.87% | 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, JHMM and IWR 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 (4.61%) compared to JHMM (4.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JHMM dropped -40.71% vs IWR's -58.78%.
On 10-year performance, JHMM leads with 12.21% vs 11.90% for IWR. On fees, IWR is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, JHMM has been the lower-risk option at 4.42%. 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 12.21% return vs 11.90%. 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 1.18%, compared with 0.87% for JHMM.
JHMM tracks John Hancock Dimensional Mid Cap Index, while IWR tracks Russell Midcap Index. They also come from different issuers: Manulife and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for JHMM and 0.19% for IWR.
JHMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 1.52), 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 JHMM and IWR
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