LCTU vs. IWF
Compare and contrast key facts about BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF).
LCTU and IWF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LCTU is an actively managed fund by BlackRock. It was launched on Apr 6, 2021. IWF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth Index. It was launched on May 22, 2000.
Performance
LCTU vs. IWF - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
LCTU vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF | -5.13% | 16.96% | 24.00% | 25.38% | -20.02% | 17.49% |
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | -9.83% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 42.59% | -29.31% | 20.52% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LCTU achieves a -5.13% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's -9.83% return.
LCTU
- 1D
- 2.89%
- 1M
- -5.09%
- YTD
- -5.13%
- 6M
- -2.83%
- 1Y
- 16.96%
- 3Y*
- 17.22%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IWF
- 1D
- 3.77%
- 1M
- -5.20%
- YTD
- -9.83%
- 6M
- -8.80%
- 1Y
- 18.54%
- 3Y*
- 21.01%
- 5Y*
- 12.22%
- 10Y*
- 16.53%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
LCTU vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison
LCTU has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IWF's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Return for Risk
LCTU vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank
LCTU
IWF
LCTU vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). 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.
| LCTU | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.91 | 0.83 | +0.08 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.41 | 1.35 | +0.06 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.19 | +0.02 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.40 | 1.15 | +0.25 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.48 | 3.95 | +2.52 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LCTU | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.91 | 0.83 | +0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.57 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.79 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.60 | 0.36 | +0.23 |
Correlation
The correlation between LCTU and IWF is 0.94, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
LCTU vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison
LCTU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.07%, more than IWF's 0.40% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF | 1.07% | 1.02% | 1.27% | 1.46% | 1.63% | 2.20% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 0.40% | 0.36% | 0.46% | 0.67% | 0.91% | 0.49% | 0.66% | 0.99% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.43% | 1.37% |
Drawdowns
LCTU vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LCTU drawdown since its inception was -25.93%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCTU and IWF.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| LCTU | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.93% | -64.25% | +38.32% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.49% | -16.27% | +3.78% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -32.72% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -32.72% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.76% | -13.12% | +6.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.51% | -22.21% | +15.70% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.69% | 4.74% | -2.05% |
Volatility
LCTU vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) is 5.40%, while iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a volatility of 6.74%. This indicates that LCTU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| LCTU | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.40% | 6.74% | -1.34% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.84% | 12.36% | -2.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.76% | 22.40% | -3.64% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.17% | 21.41% | -4.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.17% | 20.92% | -3.75% |