NUMG vs. IWP

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NUMG (Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and IWP (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds - NUMG tracks the MSCI TIAA ESG USA Mid Cap Growth while IWP tracks the Russell Midcap Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, NUMG returned -0.91%/yr vs 5.46%/yr for IWP. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NUMG charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for IWP.

Performance

NUMG vs. IWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF (NUMG) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NUMG achieves a -5.49% return, which is significantly lower than IWP's 3.69% return.

NUMG

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: -1.85%
• YTD: -5.49%
• 6M: -7.45%
• 1Y: -3.64%
• 3Y*: 6.44%
• 5Y*: -0.91%
• 10Y*: —

IWP

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 1.79%
• YTD: 3.69%
• 6M: 1.21%
• 1Y: 6.05%
• 3Y*: 15.53%
• 5Y*: 5.46%
• 10Y*: 12.76%

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

NUMG vs. IWP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NUMG Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF	-5.49%	0.78%	11.99%	20.47%	-28.31%	12.27%	45.73%	34.87%	-5.79%	19.00%
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	3.69%	8.45%	21.86%	25.70%	-26.90%	12.60%	35.25%	35.04%	-4.89%	24.93%

Correlation

The correlation between NUMG and IWP is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2016	0.92

The correlation between NUMG and IWP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

NUMG vs. IWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NUMG	IWP
Technology	33.4%	22.3%
Industrials	24.6%	25.0%
Healthcare	13.5%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	19.9%
Financial Services	6.4%	6.4%
Communication Services	5.2%	3.0%
Real Estate	3.1%	1.4%
Basic Materials	2.0%	0.4%
Utilities	1.2%	2.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.9%
Energy	-	3.9%

Return for Risk

NUMG vs. IWP — Risk / Return Rank

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

NUMG

NUMG Risk / Return Rank: 7
NUMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
NUMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
NUMG Omega Ratio Rank: 7
NUMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
NUMG Martin Ratio Rank: 7

IWP

IWP Risk / Return Rank: 13
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

NUMG vs. IWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF (NUMG) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). 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.

	NUMG	IWP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.20	0.36	-0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.15	0.62	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.07	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.19	0.41	-0.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.47	1.19	-1.66

NUMG vs. IWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NUMG Sharpe Ratio is -0.20, which is lower than the IWP Sharpe Ratio of 0.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NUMG and IWP, 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

NUMG vs. IWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NUMG drawdown since its inception was -38.85%, smaller than the maximum IWP drawdown of -56.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NUMG and IWP.

Drawdown Indicators

	NUMG	IWP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.85%	-56.92%	+18.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.71%	-14.79%	-4.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.58%	-25.20%	-1.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.85%	-38.62%	-0.23%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.97%	-2.16%	-11.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-9.67%	-1.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.76%	5.11%	+2.65%

Volatility

NUMG vs. IWP - Volatility Comparison

Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF (NUMG) has a higher volatility of 6.31% compared to iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) at 5.63%. This indicates that NUMG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NUMG	IWP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.31%	5.63%	+0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.15%	13.32%	+1.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.66%	17.05%	+1.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.94%	22.39%	+0.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.87%	21.73%	+0.14%

NUMG vs. IWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

NUMG has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than IWP's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

NUMG vs. IWP - Dividend Comparison

NUMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, less than IWP's 0.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.35%	0.37%	0.40%	0.54%	0.77%	0.30%	0.38%	0.59%	1.02%	0.78%	1.16%	0.98%
NUMG Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.06%	0.18%	0.18%	12.76%	3.82%	0.27%	5.14%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NUMG and IWP in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, NUMG and IWP 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, NUMG or IWP?

NUMG has higher volatility (6.31%) compared to IWP (5.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NUMG dropped -38.85% vs IWP's -56.92%.

Which ETF is better, NUMG or IWP?

On 5-year performance, IWP leads with 5.46% vs -0.91% for NUMG. On fees, IWP is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, IWP has been the lower-risk option at 5.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NUMG or IWP?

Over the 5-year period, IWP has performed better with a 5.46% return vs -0.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NUMG or IWP?

IWP is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for NUMG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NUMG or IWP?

IWP has the higher dividend yield at 0.35%, compared with 0.01% for NUMG.

What is the main difference between NUMG and IWP?

NUMG tracks MSCI TIAA ESG USA Mid Cap Growth, while IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Nuveen and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for NUMG and 0.23% for IWP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.36 vs -0.20), 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.