PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
MGC vs. IWL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

MGC vs. IWL

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

MGC (Vanguard Mega Cap ETF) and IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MGC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the CRSP US Mega Cap Index, while IWL is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Top 200 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MGC returned 16.48%/yr vs 16.52%/yr for IWL. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MGC charges 0.05%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for IWL.

Performance

MGC vs. IWL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC) and iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGC achieves a 10.55% return, which is significantly higher than IWL's 9.79% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with MGC having a 16.48% annualized return and IWL not far ahead at 16.52%.

MGC

1D
1.96%
1M
1.72%
YTD
10.55%
6M
11.42%
1Y
28.97%
3Y*
22.57%
5Y*
14.62%
10Y*
16.48%

IWL

1D
1.85%
1M
1.65%
YTD
9.79%
6M
10.53%
1Y
27.79%
3Y*
22.12%
5Y*
14.51%
10Y*
16.52%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MGC vs. IWL - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MGC
Vanguard Mega Cap ETF		10.55%19.31%27.16%29.77%-19.95%27.58%21.57%31.14%-3.45%22.61%
IWL
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF		9.79%19.09%27.12%29.77%-19.89%27.79%22.10%31.42%-3.30%22.90%

Correlation

The correlation between MGC and IWL is 1.00 - 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

1.00

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

1.00

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

1.00

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

0.99

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2009

0.94

The correlation between MGC and IWL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

MGC vs. IWL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
MGC
IWL

Technology

39.3%
41.8%

Communication Services

13.1%
12.1%

Financial Services

11.7%
11.1%

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
9.7%

Healthcare

8.9%
8.5%

Industrials

6.5%
6.3%

Consumer Defensive

4.8%
4.5%

Energy

2.6%
2.4%

Basic Materials

1.2%
1.4%

Utilities

1.0%
1.2%

Real Estate

1.0%
0.9%

Technology

MGC
39.3%
IWL
41.8%

Communication Services

MGC
13.1%
IWL
12.1%

Financial Services

MGC
11.7%
IWL
11.1%

Consumer Cyclical

MGC
10.1%
IWL
9.7%

Healthcare

MGC
8.9%
IWL
8.5%

Industrials

MGC
6.5%
IWL
6.3%

Consumer Defensive

MGC
4.8%
IWL
4.5%

Energy

MGC
2.6%
IWL
2.4%

Basic Materials

MGC
1.2%
IWL
1.4%

Utilities

MGC
1.0%
IWL
1.2%

Real Estate

MGC
1.0%
IWL
0.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Vanguard Mega Cap ETF

iShares Russell Top 200 ETF

Often compared with MGC:
MGC vs. MGKMGC vs. VOOMGC vs. MGVMGC vs. FGRTXMGC vs. QQQMGC vs. VOOGMGC vs. VONG
Often compared with IWL:
IWL vs. IWYIWL vs. VOOIWL vs. SPYIWL vs. IVVIWL vs. QQQMIWL vs. QQQIWL vs. QUAL

Return for Risk

MGC vs. IWL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
MGC
MGC Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
MGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGC Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
MGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGC Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
IWL
IWL Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
IWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWL Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
IWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWL Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
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.

MGC vs. IWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC) and iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL). 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.

MGCIWLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.25
2.19

+0.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.03
2.94

+0.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.39

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.96

2.84

+0.12

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.90

12.27

+0.63

MGC vs. IWL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MGC Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is comparable to the IWL Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGC and IWL, 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...

Drawdowns

MGC vs. IWL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGC drawdown since its inception was -52.26%, which is greater than IWL's maximum drawdown of -32.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGC and IWL.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

MGCIWLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-52.26%

-32.71%

-19.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.85%

-9.83%

-0.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.28%

-19.15%

-0.13%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.74%

-25.65%

-0.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.07%

-32.71%

-0.36%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.02%

-1.04%

+0.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.18%

-3.88%

-3.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.25%

2.27%

-0.02%

Volatility

MGC vs. IWL - Volatility Comparison

Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC) and iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) have volatilities of 4.96% and 4.80%, 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

MGCIWLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.96%

4.80%

+0.16%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.21%

10.03%

+0.18%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.94%

12.77%

+0.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.37%

17.26%

+0.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.26%

18.13%

+0.13%

MGC vs. IWL - Expense Ratio Comparison

MGC has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than IWL's 0.15% 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%.

Dividends

MGC vs. IWL - Dividend Comparison

MGC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than IWL's 1.04% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWL
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF		1.04%0.90%1.04%1.30%1.54%1.12%1.30%1.96%1.93%1.69%1.96%2.14%
MGC
Vanguard Mega Cap ETF		0.87%0.93%1.15%1.35%1.65%1.17%1.45%1.81%2.10%1.83%2.14%2.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 1.00, MGC and IWL 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.

MGC has higher volatility (4.96%) compared to IWL (4.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MGC dropped -52.26% vs IWL's -32.71%.

On 10-year performance, IWL leads with 16.52% vs 16.48% for MGC. On fees, MGC is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, IWL has been the lower-risk option at 4.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWL has performed better with a 16.52% return vs 16.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MGC is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for IWL.

IWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.04%, compared with 0.87% for MGC.

MGC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while IWL is Large Cap Growth Equities. MGC tracks CRSP US Mega Cap Index, while IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.05% for MGC and 0.15% for IWL.

MGC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 2.19), 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 MGC and IWL

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