WINN vs. IXC

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

WINN (Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF) and IXC (iShares Global Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - WINN is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Harbor, while IXC is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global 1200 Energy Capped Index. WINN is actively managed, while IXC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, WINN returned 21.76%/yr vs 14.69%/yr for IXC. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. WINN charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for IXC.

Performance

WINN vs. IXC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF (WINN) and iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WINN achieves a 6.54% return, which is significantly lower than IXC's 23.35% return.

WINN

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 3.66%
• 6M: 5.63%
• YTD: 6.54%
• 1Y: 13.65%
• 3Y*: 21.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IXC

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -4.50%
• 6M: 20.68%
• YTD: 23.35%
• 1Y: 29.02%
• 3Y*: 14.69%
• 5Y*: 18.91%
• 10Y*: 8.83%

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

WINN vs. IXC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
WINN Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF	6.54%	14.31%	31.64%	52.44%	-27.98%
IXC iShares Global Energy ETF	23.35%	13.98%	1.95%	3.92%	23.20%

Correlation

The correlation between WINN and IXC is -0.19, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2022	0.15

The correlation between WINN and IXC shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.15 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

WINN vs. IXC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WINN	IXC
Technology	47.7%	-
Communication Services	15.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	11.9%	-
Healthcare	8.6%	-
Industrials	6.6%	-
Financial Services	5.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	-
Utilities	1.1%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.4%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	99.4%

Return for Risk

WINN vs. IXC — Risk / Return Rank

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

WINN

WINN Risk / Return Rank: 24
WINN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
WINN Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
WINN Omega Ratio Rank: 25
WINN Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
WINN Martin Ratio Rank: 22

IXC

IXC Risk / Return Rank: 51
IXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
IXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
IXC Omega Ratio Rank: 51
IXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
IXC Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

WINN vs. IXC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF (WINN) and iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC). 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.

	WINN	IXC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.78	1.56	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.16	2.09	-0.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.26	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.74	1.95	-1.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.21	6.26	-4.05

WINN vs. IXC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WINN Sharpe Ratio is 0.78, which is lower than the IXC Sharpe Ratio of 1.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WINN and IXC, 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

WINN vs. IXC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WINN drawdown since its inception was -32.07%, smaller than the maximum IXC drawdown of -67.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WINN and IXC.

Drawdown Indicators

	WINN	IXC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.07%	-67.88%	+35.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.06%	-15.36%	-2.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.66%	-19.06%	-4.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.93%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-64.16%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.56%	-11.22%	+8.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.99%	-17.45%	+8.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.00%	4.78%	+1.22%

Volatility

WINN vs. IXC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF (WINN) is 6.01%, while iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC) has a volatility of 6.59%. This indicates that WINN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IXC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WINN	IXC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.01%	6.59%	-0.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.57%	15.86%	-2.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.07%	19.18%	-2.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.71%	23.45%	+0.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.71%	26.81%	-3.10%

WINN vs. IXC - Expense Ratio Comparison

WINN has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is higher than IXC's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

WINN vs. IXC - Dividend Comparison

WINN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.08%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IXC iShares Global Energy ETF	3.08%	3.68%	4.56%	3.45%	4.76%	3.98%	4.86%	7.00%	3.51%	3.05%	2.86%	3.77%
WINN Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WINN and IXC in my portfolio?

WINN and IXC have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, WINN or IXC?

IXC has higher volatility (6.59%) compared to WINN (6.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WINN dropped -32.07% vs IXC's -67.88%.

Which ETF is better, WINN or IXC?

On 3-year performance, WINN leads with 21.76% vs 14.69% for IXC. On fees, IXC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, WINN has been the lower-risk option at 6.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WINN or IXC?

Over the 3-year period, WINN has performed better with a 21.76% return vs 14.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WINN or IXC?

IXC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.57% for WINN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, WINN or IXC?

IXC has the higher dividend yield at 3.08%, compared with 0.00% for WINN.

What is the main difference between WINN and IXC?

WINN is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IXC is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Harbor and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for WINN and 0.40% for IXC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.56 vs 0.78), 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.