PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QQJG vs. IWP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QQJG vs. IWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQJG achieves a 1.44% return, which is significantly lower than IWP's 4.59% return.


QQJG

1D
0.00%
1M
0.00%
YTD
1.44%
6M
1.43%
1Y
18.67%
3Y*
14.26%
5Y*
10Y*

IWP

1D
0.80%
1M
4.11%
YTD
4.59%
6M
3.03%
1Y
6.41%
3Y*
16.22%
5Y*
6.76%
10Y*
12.43%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QQJG vs. IWP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
QQJG
Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF
1.44%18.05%14.67%17.20%-27.69%0.91%
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
4.59%8.45%21.86%25.70%-26.90%-2.09%

Correlation

The correlation between QQJG and IWP is 0.65, 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

0.65

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

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2021

0.88

Over the past year, the correlation between QQJG and IWP has dropped to 0.65 - well below their long-term average of 0.88, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

QQJG vs. IWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QQJG
IWP

Technology

44.5%
20.0%

Healthcare

18.2%
13.5%

Consumer Cyclical

14.3%
21.1%

Industrials

6.4%
24.2%

Communication Services

6.2%
4.2%

Consumer Defensive

3.4%
1.5%

Basic Materials

2.5%
0.4%

Energy

1.6%
3.8%

Financial Services

0.1%
6.9%

Real Estate

-

1.4%

Utilities

-

2.9%

Technology

QQJG
44.5%
IWP
20.0%

Healthcare

QQJG
18.2%
IWP
13.5%

Consumer Cyclical

QQJG
14.3%
IWP
21.1%

Industrials

QQJG
6.4%
IWP
24.2%

Communication Services

QQJG
6.2%
IWP
4.2%

Consumer Defensive

QQJG
3.4%
IWP
1.5%

Basic Materials

QQJG
2.5%
IWP
0.4%

Energy

QQJG
1.6%
IWP
3.8%

Financial Services

QQJG
0.1%
IWP
6.9%

Real Estate

QQJG

-

IWP
1.4%

Utilities

QQJG

-

IWP
2.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

QQJG vs. IWP — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQJG
QQJG Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
QQJG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQJG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQJG Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
QQJG Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQJG Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
Martin Ratio Rank

IWP
IWP Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 1515
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.

QQJG vs. IWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG) 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.


QQJGIWPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.96

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.28

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.08

+0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.38

0.44

+1.95

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.74

1.27

+7.47

QQJG vs. IWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQJG Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is higher than the IWP Sharpe Ratio of 0.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQJG 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QQJGIWPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.35

0.39

+0.96

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.58

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.16

0.43

-0.26

Drawdowns

QQJG vs. IWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQJG drawdown since its inception was -36.76%, smaller than the maximum IWP drawdown of -56.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQJG and IWP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QQJGIWPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.76%

-56.92%

+20.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.93%

-14.79%

+6.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.48%

-25.20%

+1.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.62%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.09%

-1.32%

-0.77%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.31%

-9.68%

-5.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.15%

5.06%

-2.91%

Volatility

QQJG vs. IWP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG) is 0.00%, while iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) has a volatility of 3.73%. This indicates that QQJG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QQJGIWPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.00%

3.73%

-3.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.27%

12.64%

-4.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.00%

16.48%

-2.48%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.70%

22.30%

-0.60%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.70%

21.67%

+0.03%

QQJG vs. IWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQJG has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than IWP's 0.23% 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

QQJG vs. IWP - Dividend Comparison

QQJG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.86%, more than IWP's 0.32% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF
0.32%0.37%0.40%0.54%0.77%0.30%0.38%0.59%1.02%0.78%1.16%0.98%
QQJG
Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF
13.86%0.68%0.65%0.54%0.70%0.08%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


QQJG and IWP have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWP has higher volatility (3.73%) compared to QQJG (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQJG dropped -36.76% vs IWP's -56.92%.

On 3-year performance, IWP leads with 16.22% vs 14.26% for QQJG. On fees, QQJG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, QQJG has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, IWP has performed better with a 16.22% return vs 14.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QQJG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IWP.

QQJG has the higher dividend yield at 13.86%, compared with 0.32% for IWP.

QQJG tracks Nasdaq Next Generation 100 ESG Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for QQJG and 0.23% for IWP.

QQJG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 vs 0.39), 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 QQJG and IWP

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