QOWZ vs. ILCG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QOWZ (Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - QOWZ tracks the Nasdaq US Free Cash Flow Achievers Index - Benchmark TR Gross while ILCG tracks the Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QOWZ returned -4.42% vs 22.02% for ILCG. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QOWZ charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF (QOWZ) 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, QOWZ achieves a -8.29% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 9.21% return.

QOWZ

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: -3.41%
• YTD: -8.29%
• 6M: -9.37%
• 1Y: -4.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -2.86%
• 1M: -1.80%
• YTD: 9.21%
• 6M: 7.82%
• 1Y: 22.02%
• 3Y*: 23.80%
• 5Y*: 12.71%
• 10Y*: 18.10%

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

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QOWZ Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF	-8.29%	7.24%	33.16%	5.69%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	9.21%	16.71%	32.82%	4.36%

Correlation

The correlation between QOWZ and ILCG is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2023	0.85

The correlation between QOWZ and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QOWZ	ILCG
Technology	60.1%	53.1%
Industrials	11.6%	7.7%
Healthcare	9.8%	5.2%
Communication Services	8.3%	13.5%
Financial Services	4.8%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	1.4%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Energy	-	0.4%
Real Estate	-	1.3%
Utilities	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

QOWZ vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QOWZ

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

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 34
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 36
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF (QOWZ) 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.

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.

	QOWZ	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.28	1.25	-1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.29	1.72	-2.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.23	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.25	1.41	-1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.63	4.86	-5.49

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QOWZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.28, which is lower than the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QOWZ 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.

Drawdowns

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QOWZ drawdown since its inception was -20.36%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QOWZ and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QOWZ	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.36%	-52.98%	+32.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.81%	-15.65%	-2.16%
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	-11.78%	-5.58%	-6.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.09%	-8.21%	+4.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.03%	4.54%	+2.49%

Volatility

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF (QOWZ) is 6.26%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 7.83%. This indicates that QOWZ 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

	QOWZ	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.26%	7.83%	-1.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.54%	14.51%	-1.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.64%	17.70%	-2.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.30%	22.22%	-2.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.30%	21.63%	-2.33%

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QOWZ has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

QOWZ vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

QOWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.27%, less than ILCG's 0.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.42%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%
QOWZ Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF	0.27%	0.28%	0.66%	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 QOWZ and ILCG in my portfolio?

QOWZ and ILCG have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QOWZ or ILCG?

ILCG has higher volatility (7.83%) compared to QOWZ (6.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QOWZ dropped -20.36% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, QOWZ or ILCG?

On 1-year performance, ILCG leads with 22.02% vs -4.42% for QOWZ. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, QOWZ has been the lower-risk option at 6.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QOWZ or ILCG?

Over the 1-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 22.02% return vs -4.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QOWZ or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for QOWZ.

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

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.27% for QOWZ.

What is the main difference between QOWZ and ILCG?

QOWZ tracks Nasdaq US Free Cash Flow Achievers Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while ILCG tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for QOWZ and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs -0.28), 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.