XLG vs. IWB

In the year-to-date period, XLG achieves a -6.54% return, which is significantly lower than IWB's -3.44% return. Over the past 10 years, XLG has outperformed IWB with an annualized return of 14.04%, while IWB has yielded a comparatively lower 11.92% annualized return.

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

XLG has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than IWB's 0.15% 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%.

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF (XLG) and iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB). 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.

The current XLG Sharpe Ratio is 0.52, which is comparable to the IWB Sharpe Ratio of 0.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLG and IWB, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

XLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, less than IWB's 1.17% yield.

The maximum XLG drawdown since its inception was -52.39%, smaller than the maximum IWB drawdown of -55.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLG and IWB. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.

Invesco S&P 500® Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a higher volatility of 7.53% compared to iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) at 6.78%. This indicates that XLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.