MFSG vs. ILCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MFSG (MFS Active Growth ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. MFSG is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Over the past year, MFSG returned 21.54% vs 29.51% for ILCG. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. MFSG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

MFSG vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MFSG achieves a 7.55% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 14.48% return.

MFSG

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: 4.46%
• YTD: 7.55%
• 6M: 7.63%
• 1Y: 21.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: 7.68%
• YTD: 14.48%
• 6M: 14.61%
• 1Y: 29.51%
• 3Y*: 26.55%
• 5Y*: 14.95%
• 10Y*: 18.15%

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

MFSG vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MFSG MFS Active Growth ETF	7.55%	14.51%	-2.74%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	14.48%	16.71%	-3.10%

Correlation

The correlation between MFSG and ILCG is 0.96 - 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	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2024	0.97

The correlation between MFSG and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MFSG vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFSG

MFSG Risk / Return Rank: 35
MFSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
MFSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
MFSG Omega Ratio Rank: 37
MFSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
MFSG Martin Ratio Rank: 32

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 46
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 50
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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.

MFSG vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.

	MFSG	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.35	1.82	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.90	2.45	-0.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.32	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.34	1.89	-0.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.66	6.68	-2.01
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MFSG vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFSG Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFSG and ILCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MFSG	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.35	1.82	-0.47
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.85	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.59	+0.01

Drawdowns

MFSG vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFSG drawdown since its inception was -23.24%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFSG and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFSG	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.24%	-52.98%	+29.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.15%	-15.65%	-0.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.38%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.01%	-1.02%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.67%	-8.22%	+3.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.63%	4.43%	+0.20%

Volatility

MFSG vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) is 3.71%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 4.40%. This indicates that MFSG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MFSG	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.71%	4.40%	-0.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.41%	12.81%	-0.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.00%	16.31%	-0.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.69%	22.00%	-0.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.69%	21.53%	+0.16%

MFSG vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFSG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFSG vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

MFSG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than ILCG's 0.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.40%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%
MFSG MFS Active Growth ETF	0.07%	0.08%	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 MFSG and ILCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, MFSG and ILCG 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.

Which is riskier, MFSG or ILCG?

ILCG has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to MFSG (3.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFSG dropped -23.24% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, MFSG or ILCG?

On 1-year performance, ILCG leads with 29.51% vs 21.54% for MFSG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, MFSG has been the lower-risk option at 3.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFSG or ILCG?

Over the 1-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 29.51% return vs 21.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFSG or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for MFSG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MFSG or ILCG?

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.07% for MFSG.

What is the main difference between MFSG and ILCG?

They also come from different issuers: MFS and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MFSG and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.35), 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.