TGRW vs. ILCG

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

TGRW (T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. TGRW is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TGRW returned 7.74%/yr vs 12.67%/yr for ILCG. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. TGRW charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

TGRW vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF (TGRW) 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, TGRW achieves a 3.16% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 11.72% return.

TGRW

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: 1.90%
• 6M: 2.96%
• YTD: 3.16%
• 1Y: 12.45%
• 3Y*: 18.75%
• 5Y*: 7.74%
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: 1.40%
• 1M: 1.60%
• 6M: 9.86%
• YTD: 11.72%
• 1Y: 19.42%
• 3Y*: 22.98%
• 5Y*: 12.67%
• 10Y*: 17.68%

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

TGRW vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TGRW T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF	3.16%	15.62%	29.94%	48.87%	-38.42%	14.97%	16.40%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	11.72%	16.71%	32.82%	40.41%	-31.75%	24.33%	13.50%

Correlation

The correlation between TGRW and ILCG is 0.95, 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	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2020	0.97

The correlation between TGRW and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

TGRW vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TGRW	ILCG
Technology	52.6%	53.1%
Communication Services	16.5%	13.5%
Consumer Cyclical	13.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	6.6%	5.2%
Financial Services	5.2%	5.5%
Industrials	4.1%	7.7%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	1.4%
Basic Materials	0.6%	1.0%
Real Estate	0.6%	1.3%
Energy	-	0.4%
Utilities	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

TGRW vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TGRW

TGRW Risk / Return Rank: 22
TGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
TGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
TGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 23
TGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
TGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 21

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 34
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 35
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.

TGRW vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF (TGRW) 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.

	TGRW	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.71	1.08	-0.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.08	1.52	-0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.20	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	1.25	-0.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.02	4.17	-2.16

TGRW vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TGRW Sharpe Ratio is 0.71, which is lower than the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TGRW 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

TGRW vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TGRW drawdown since its inception was -43.33%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TGRW and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TGRW	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.33%	-52.98%	+9.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.84%	-15.65%	-3.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.18%	-23.10%	-0.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.33%	-35.38%	-7.95%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.27%	-3.41%	-0.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.34%	-8.20%	-4.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.19%	4.66%	+1.53%

Volatility

TGRW vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF (TGRW) is 5.99%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 7.00%. This indicates that TGRW 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

	TGRW	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.99%	7.00%	-1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.04%	15.12%	-1.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.64%	18.11%	-0.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.46%	22.31%	+1.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.00%	21.65%	+1.35%

TGRW vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TGRW has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

TGRW vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

TGRW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.41%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.41%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%
TGRW T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.40%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TGRW and ILCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, TGRW 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.

Which is riskier, TGRW or ILCG?

ILCG has higher volatility (7.00%) compared to TGRW (5.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TGRW dropped -43.33% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, TGRW or ILCG?

On 5-year performance, ILCG leads with 12.67% vs 7.74% for TGRW. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, TGRW has been the lower-risk option at 5.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TGRW or ILCG?

Over the 5-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 12.67% return vs 7.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TGRW or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for TGRW.

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

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.41%, compared with 0.00% for TGRW.

What is the main difference between TGRW and ILCG?

They also come from different issuers: T. Rowe Price and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for TGRW and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.08 vs 0.71), 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.