REGS vs. ILCG
REGS (Columbia Large Cap Growth ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. REGS is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. REGS charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.
Performance
REGS vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
REGS
- 1D
- -1.75%
- 1M
- -0.87%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ILCG
- 1D
- -1.70%
- 1M
- -1.90%
- 6M
- 8.84%
- YTD
- 9.80%
- 1Y
- 16.71%
- 3Y*
- 21.94%
- 5Y*
- 12.41%
- 10Y*
- 17.43%
REGS vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
REGS Columbia Large Cap Growth ETF | 11.06% |
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF | 16.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between REGS and ILCG is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 16, 2026 | 0.94 |
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
REGS vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank
REGS
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ILCG
REGS vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Large Cap Growth ETF (REGS) 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.
| REGS | ILCG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.17 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.07 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 3.58 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
REGS vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum REGS drawdown since its inception was -7.59%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for REGS and ILCG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| REGS | ILCG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -7.59% | -52.98% | +45.39% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -15.65% | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.81% | -5.07% | +0.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.41% | -8.20% | +5.79% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 4.68% | — |
Volatility
REGS vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| REGS | ILCG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 6.57% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 15.22% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.06% | 18.20% | +1.86% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.06% | 22.32% | -2.26% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.06% | 21.65% | -1.59% |
REGS vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison
REGS has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.
Dividends
REGS vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison
REGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%.
| 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% |
REGS Columbia Large Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.94, REGS 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.
On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for REGS.
ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.00% for REGS.
They also come from different issuers: Columbia Threadneedle and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for REGS and 0.04% for ILCG.
Find the right allocation for REGS and ILCG
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