MAVF vs. IWX

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MAVF (Matrix Advisors Value ETF) and IWX (iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. MAVF is actively managed, while IWX is passively managed. Over the past year, MAVF returned 27.51% vs 34.92% for IWX. Their correlation of 0.84 means they have usually moved in the same direction. MAVF charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for IWX.

Performance

MAVF vs. IWX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matrix Advisors Value ETF (MAVF) and iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF (IWX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MAVF achieves a 13.40% return, which is significantly lower than IWX's 20.90% return.

MAVF

• 1D: 1.34%
• 1M: 1.14%
• 6M: 8.67%
• YTD: 13.40%
• 1Y: 27.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 22.89%

IWX

• 1D: 0.74%
• 1M: 2.59%
• 6M: 15.57%
• YTD: 20.90%
• 1Y: 34.92%
• 3Y*: 18.98%
• 5Y*: 12.65%
• 10Y*: 12.13%
• ALL TIME*: 11.70%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IWX iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF	$55.11M	$49.72M	$33.93M
MAVF Matrix Advisors Value ETF	$33.66K	$41.27K	$52.86K

MAVF vs. IWX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MAVF Matrix Advisors Value ETF	13.40%	18.40%
IWX iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF	20.90%	11.94%

Correlation

The correlation between MAVF and IWX is 0.83, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2025	0.84

The correlation between MAVF and IWX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

MAVF vs. IWX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MAVF	IWX
Technology	26.7%	22.6%
Financial Services	25.2%	20.0%
Communication Services	15.1%	3.5%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	11.6%
Healthcare	9.3%	13.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	8.2%
Industrials	5.9%	8.3%
Basic Materials	-	2.8%
Energy	-	5.1%
Real Estate	-	1.8%
Utilities	-	2.6%

Return for Risk

MAVF vs. IWX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

MAVF

MAVF Risk / Return Rank: 71
MAVF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
MAVF Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
MAVF Omega Ratio Rank: 71
MAVF Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
MAVF Martin Ratio Rank: 73

IWX

IWX Risk / Return Rank: 95
IWX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
IWX Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
IWX Omega Ratio Rank: 95
IWX Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
IWX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

MAVF vs. IWX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matrix Advisors Value ETF (MAVF) and iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF (IWX). 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.

	MAVF	IWX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.72	3.10	-1.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.41	4.28	-1.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.55	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.32	5.05	-2.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.18	22.22	-13.04

MAVF vs. IWX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MAVF Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is lower than the IWX Sharpe Ratio of 3.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MAVF and IWX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

MAVF vs. IWX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MAVF drawdown since its inception was -17.13%, smaller than the maximum IWX drawdown of -35.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MAVF and IWX.

Drawdown Indicators

	MAVF	IWX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.13%	-35.76%	+18.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.94%	-6.59%	-4.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.37%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.13%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.00%	0.00%	-1.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.47%	-3.79%	+1.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.76%	1.50%	+1.26%

Volatility

MAVF vs. IWX - Volatility Comparison

Matrix Advisors Value ETF (MAVF) has a higher volatility of 4.32% compared to iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF (IWX) at 3.10%. This indicates that MAVF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MAVF	IWX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.32%	3.10%	+1.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.56%	8.46%	+3.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.75%	10.81%	+3.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.83%	13.89%	+4.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.83%	16.48%	+2.35%

MAVF vs. IWX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MAVF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than IWX's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

MAVF vs. IWX - Dividend Comparison

MAVF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than IWX's 1.39% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWX iShares Russell Top 200 Value ETF	1.39%	1.59%	1.97%	2.13%	2.07%	1.79%	2.12%	2.60%	2.66%	2.12%	2.22%	2.77%
MAVF Matrix Advisors Value ETF	0.37%	0.42%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MAVF and IWX in my portfolio?

MAVF and IWX have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MAVF or IWX?

MAVF has higher volatility (4.32%) compared to IWX (3.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MAVF dropped -17.13% vs IWX's -35.76%.

Which ETF is better, MAVF or IWX?

On 1-year performance, IWX leads with 34.92% vs 27.51% for MAVF. On fees, IWX is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, IWX has been the lower-risk option at 3.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MAVF or IWX?

Over the 1-year period, IWX has performed better with a 34.92% return vs 27.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MAVF or IWX?

IWX is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for MAVF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MAVF or IWX?

IWX has the higher dividend yield at 1.39%, compared with 0.37% for MAVF.

What is the main difference between MAVF and IWX?

They also come from different issuers: Matrix and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for MAVF and 0.20% for IWX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.10 vs 1.72), 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.