PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
TMFC vs. ILCG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

TMFC vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMFC achieves a 8.44% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 14.48% return.


TMFC

1D
-0.85%
1M
4.54%
YTD
8.44%
6M
8.14%
1Y
25.76%
3Y*
26.20%
5Y*
15.96%
10Y*

ILCG

1D
-1.02%
1M
7.68%
YTD
14.48%
6M
14.61%
1Y
29.51%
3Y*
26.55%
5Y*
14.95%
10Y*
18.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TMFC vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
TMFC
Motley Fool 100 Index ETF
8.44%19.55%35.17%47.04%-30.86%25.30%42.00%34.70%-5.66%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
14.48%16.71%32.82%40.41%-31.75%24.33%38.56%33.22%-6.01%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFC 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

0.98

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2018

0.97

The correlation between TMFC and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

TMFC vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
TMFC
ILCG

Technology

41.4%
49.8%

Communication Services

17.4%
14.5%

Financial Services

12.9%
6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

11.4%
10.6%

Healthcare

4.8%
5.3%

Consumer Defensive

4.3%
1.6%

Industrials

4.0%
8.3%

Energy

1.9%
0.5%

Real Estate

0.9%
1.4%

Basic Materials

0.6%
1.1%

Utilities

0.5%
0.8%

Technology

TMFC
41.4%
ILCG
49.8%

Communication Services

TMFC
17.4%
ILCG
14.5%

Financial Services

TMFC
12.9%
ILCG
6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

TMFC
11.4%
ILCG
10.6%

Healthcare

TMFC
4.8%
ILCG
5.3%

Consumer Defensive

TMFC
4.3%
ILCG
1.6%

Industrials

TMFC
4.0%
ILCG
8.3%

Energy

TMFC
1.9%
ILCG
0.5%

Real Estate

TMFC
0.9%
ILCG
1.4%

Basic Materials

TMFC
0.6%
ILCG
1.1%

Utilities

TMFC
0.5%
ILCG
0.8%

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

TMFC vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFC
TMFC Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
TMFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TMFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
TMFC Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
TMFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
TMFC Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
Martin Ratio Rank

ILCG
ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
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.

TMFC vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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.


TMFCILCGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.32

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.05

1.89

+0.15

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.63

6.68

+0.95

TMFC vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFC 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


TMFCILCGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.91

1.82

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.79

0.68

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.85

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.83

0.59

+0.24

Drawdowns

TMFC vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFC drawdown since its inception was -33.06%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFC and ILCG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


TMFCILCGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.06%

-52.98%

+19.92%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.64%

-15.65%

+3.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.06%

-23.10%

+3.04%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.06%

-35.38%

+2.32%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.38%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.11%

-1.02%

-0.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.77%

-8.22%

+1.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.39%

4.43%

-1.04%

Volatility

TMFC vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) is 3.21%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 4.40%. This indicates that TMFC 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


TMFCILCGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.21%

4.40%

-1.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.11%

12.81%

-2.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.52%

16.31%

-2.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.37%

22.00%

-1.63%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.99%

21.53%

+0.46%

TMFC vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFC has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.


Dividends

TMFC vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than ILCG's 0.40% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
0.40%0.47%0.50%0.69%0.75%0.34%0.28%0.54%0.81%0.89%0.95%0.99%
TMFC
Motley Fool 100 Index ETF
0.13%0.14%0.40%0.26%0.27%0.23%0.42%0.50%0.61%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.95, TMFC 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.

ILCG has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to TMFC (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFC dropped -33.06% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

On 5-year performance, TMFC leads with 15.96% vs 14.95% for ILCG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, TMFC has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, TMFC has performed better with a 15.96% return vs 14.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for TMFC.

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.13% for TMFC.

TMFC tracks Motley Fool 100 Index, while ILCG tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for TMFC and 0.04% for ILCG.

TMFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.82), 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 TMFC 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