PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XJH vs. IMCB
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XJH vs. IMCB

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

XJH (iShares ESG Screened S&P Mid-Cap ETF) and IMCB (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds from iShares - XJH tracks the S&P MidCap 400 Sustainability Screened Index while IMCB tracks the IMCB-US - Morningstar U.S. Mid Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XJH returned 7.22%/yr vs 8.46%/yr for IMCB. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XJH charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for IMCB.

Performance

XJH vs. IMCB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares ESG Screened S&P Mid-Cap ETF (XJH) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XJH achieves a 11.87% return, which is significantly lower than IMCB's 12.89% return.

XJH

1D
-2.05%
1M
-0.88%
YTD
11.87%
6M
11.82%
1Y
24.57%
3Y*
14.70%
5Y*
7.22%
10Y*
—

IMCB

1D
-2.27%
1M
1.43%
YTD
12.89%
6M
12.47%
1Y
21.77%
3Y*
17.01%
5Y*
8.46%
10Y*
11.06%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XJH vs. IMCB - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XJH
iShares ESG Screened S&P Mid-Cap ETF		11.87%8.12%12.27%16.74%-14.36%23.43%29.59%
IMCB
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF		12.89%10.25%15.10%16.37%-16.09%22.81%21.06%

Correlation

The correlation between XJH and IMCB is 0.92, 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

0.92

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

0.94

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2020

0.95

The correlation between XJH and IMCB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

XJH vs. IMCB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XJH
IMCB

Industrials

25.9%
19.0%

Technology

16.0%
21.3%

Financial Services

14.8%
12.0%

Consumer Cyclical

11.3%
9.0%

Healthcare

9.6%
7.9%

Real Estate

8.2%
4.3%

Basic Materials

4.9%
5.3%

Consumer Defensive

3.8%
5.1%

Energy

2.9%
7.4%

Utilities

1.6%
6.2%

Communication Services

1.1%
2.3%

Industrials

XJH
25.9%
IMCB
19.0%

Technology

XJH
16.0%
IMCB
21.3%

Financial Services

XJH
14.8%
IMCB
12.0%

Consumer Cyclical

XJH
11.3%
IMCB
9.0%

Healthcare

XJH
9.6%
IMCB
7.9%

Real Estate

XJH
8.2%
IMCB
4.3%

Basic Materials

XJH
4.9%
IMCB
5.3%

Consumer Defensive

XJH
3.8%
IMCB
5.1%

Energy

XJH
2.9%
IMCB
7.4%

Utilities

XJH
1.6%
IMCB
6.2%

Communication Services

XJH
1.1%
IMCB
2.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares ESG Screened S&P Mid-Cap ETF

iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF

Often compared with XJH:
XJH vs. XJRXJH vs. XMMOXJH vs. NUMVXJH vs. IJHXJH vs. NUMGXJH vs. MDYXJH vs. FZIPX
Often compared with IMCB:
IMCB vs. IMCGIMCB vs. FSMDXIMCB vs. SPMDIMCB vs. BKMCIMCB vs. IJHIMCB vs. ISCBIMCB vs. VO

Return for Risk

XJH vs. IMCB — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XJH
XJH Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
XJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
XJH Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
XJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
XJH Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank
IMCB
IMCB Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
IMCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMCB Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
IMCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMCB Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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.

XJH vs. IMCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Screened S&P Mid-Cap ETF (XJH) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB). 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.

XJHIMCBDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.51
1.69

-0.18

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.21
2.38

-0.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.30

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.57

2.72

-0.15

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.44

10.74

-1.30

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XJH vs. IMCB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XJH Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the IMCB Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XJH and IMCB, 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

XJHIMCBDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.51

1.69

-0.18

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.36

0.48

-0.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.56

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.50

+0.24

Drawdowns

XJH vs. IMCB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XJH drawdown since its inception was -25.07%, smaller than the maximum IMCB drawdown of -58.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XJH and IMCB.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XJHIMCBDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.07%

-58.80%

+33.73%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.61%

-8.05%

-1.56%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.56%

-19.80%

-4.76%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.07%

-25.15%

+0.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-40.99%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.05%

-2.27%

+0.22%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.82%

-7.73%

+0.91%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.61%

2.03%

+0.58%

Volatility

XJH vs. IMCB - Volatility Comparison

iShares ESG Screened S&P Mid-Cap ETF (XJH) has a higher volatility of 4.49% compared to iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) at 4.00%. This indicates that XJH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IMCB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XJHIMCBDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.49%

4.00%

+0.49%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.07%

9.87%

+2.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.39%

12.96%

+3.43%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.94%

17.59%

+2.35%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.89%

19.66%

+0.23%

XJH vs. IMCB - Expense Ratio Comparison

XJH has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCB's 0.04% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XJH vs. IMCB - Dividend Comparison

XJH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, less than IMCB's 1.23% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IMCB
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF		1.23%1.42%1.43%1.55%1.70%1.08%1.12%1.32%1.80%1.31%1.79%1.47%
XJH
iShares ESG Screened S&P Mid-Cap ETF		1.12%1.24%1.24%1.38%1.45%1.04%0.36%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.92, XJH and IMCB 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.

XJH has higher volatility (4.49%) compared to IMCB (4.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XJH dropped -25.07% vs IMCB's -58.80%.

On 5-year performance, IMCB leads with 8.46% vs 7.22% for XJH. On fees, IMCB is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IMCB has been the lower-risk option at 4.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IMCB has performed better with a 8.46% return vs 7.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IMCB is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.12% for XJH.

IMCB has the higher dividend yield at 1.23%, compared with 1.12% for XJH.

XJH tracks S&P MidCap 400 Sustainability Screened Index, while IMCB tracks IMCB-US - Morningstar U.S. Mid Cap Index. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for XJH and 0.04% for IMCB.

IMCB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.51), 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 XJH and IMCB

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