PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LRGF vs. INTF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LRGF vs. INTF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) and iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF (INTF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRGF achieves a 10.50% return, which is significantly higher than INTF's 9.48% return. Over the past 10 years, LRGF has outperformed INTF with an annualized return of 14.03%, while INTF has yielded a comparatively lower 9.16% annualized return.


LRGF

1D
-0.71%
1M
6.20%
YTD
10.50%
6M
10.60%
1Y
24.87%
3Y*
22.80%
5Y*
13.83%
10Y*
14.03%

INTF

1D
-0.84%
1M
2.45%
YTD
9.48%
6M
12.57%
1Y
25.20%
3Y*
19.52%
5Y*
9.49%
10Y*
9.16%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LRGF vs. INTF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
LRGF
iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF
10.50%16.48%26.59%25.85%-14.77%25.01%11.11%26.11%-9.66%21.13%
INTF
iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF
9.48%35.50%5.99%18.25%-12.31%11.70%2.83%18.46%-15.87%28.46%

Correlation

The correlation between LRGF and INTF is 0.73, 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

0.73

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

0.70

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

0.75

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

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2015

0.73

The correlation between LRGF and INTF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

LRGF vs. INTF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LRGF
INTF

Technology

35.6%
8.5%

Financial Services

12.5%
25.2%

Consumer Cyclical

11.2%
9.0%

Healthcare

9.1%
8.2%

Communication Services

8.2%
3.9%

Industrials

8.1%
19.1%

Consumer Defensive

6.0%
6.3%

Energy

3.7%
5.9%

Utilities

2.3%
4.7%

Basic Materials

2.0%
6.6%

Real Estate

1.3%
2.7%

Technology

LRGF
35.6%
INTF
8.5%

Financial Services

LRGF
12.5%
INTF
25.2%

Consumer Cyclical

LRGF
11.2%
INTF
9.0%

Healthcare

LRGF
9.1%
INTF
8.2%

Communication Services

LRGF
8.2%
INTF
3.9%

Industrials

LRGF
8.1%
INTF
19.1%

Consumer Defensive

LRGF
6.0%
INTF
6.3%

Energy

LRGF
3.7%
INTF
5.9%

Utilities

LRGF
2.3%
INTF
4.7%

Basic Materials

LRGF
2.0%
INTF
6.6%

Real Estate

LRGF
1.3%
INTF
2.7%

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

LRGF vs. INTF — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRGF
LRGF Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
LRGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LRGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
LRGF Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
LRGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
LRGF Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

INTF
INTF Risk / Return Rank: 5151
Overall Rank
INTF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INTF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
INTF Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
INTF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
INTF Martin Ratio Rank: 5656
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.

LRGF vs. INTF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) and iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF (INTF). 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.


LRGFINTFDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.08

1.74

+0.33

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.86

2.44

+0.42

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.31

+0.06

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.80

2.48

+0.32

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

11.62

9.82

+1.80

LRGF vs. INTF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRGF Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the INTF Sharpe Ratio of 1.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRGF and INTF, 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


LRGFINTFDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.08

1.74

+0.33

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

0.59

+0.23

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.77

0.53

+0.24

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.70

0.45

+0.25

Drawdowns

LRGF vs. INTF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRGF drawdown since its inception was -36.03%, smaller than the maximum INTF drawdown of -40.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRGF and INTF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LRGFINTFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.03%

-40.39%

+4.36%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.92%

-10.20%

+1.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.44%

-13.64%

-5.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.62%

-29.26%

+7.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.03%

-40.39%

+4.36%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.71%

-1.03%

+0.32%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.54%

-7.70%

+3.16%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.14%

2.57%

-0.43%

Volatility

LRGF vs. INTF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) is 2.92%, while iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF (INTF) has a volatility of 4.52%. This indicates that LRGF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INTF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LRGFINTFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.92%

4.52%

-1.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.09%

11.98%

-2.89%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.06%

14.55%

-2.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.03%

16.16%

+0.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.31%

17.35%

+0.96%

LRGF vs. INTF - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRGF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than INTF's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

LRGF vs. INTF - Dividend Comparison

LRGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, less than INTF's 2.62% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
INTF
iShares MSCI Intl Multifactor ETF
2.62%2.87%3.53%3.59%2.81%5.38%2.06%3.65%2.62%3.26%1.66%0.85%
LRGF
iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF
1.06%1.16%1.23%1.49%1.78%1.05%1.35%1.76%3.27%1.68%1.56%0.83%

Frequently Asked Questions


LRGF and INTF have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

INTF has higher volatility (4.52%) compared to LRGF (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRGF dropped -36.03% vs INTF's -40.39%.

On 10-year performance, LRGF leads with 14.03% vs 9.16% for INTF. On fees, LRGF is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, LRGF has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, LRGF has performed better with a 14.03% return vs 9.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LRGF is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for INTF.

INTF has the higher dividend yield at 2.62%, compared with 1.06% for LRGF.

LRGF is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while INTF is Foreign Large Cap Equities. LRGF tracks MSCI USA Diversified Multi-Factor, while INTF tracks MSCI World ex USA Diversified Multi-Factor. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for LRGF and 0.30% for INTF.

LRGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.74), 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 LRGF and INTF

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