XLG vs. IWL

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) and IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index, while IWL is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Top 200 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XLG returned 17.03%/yr vs 16.17%/yr for IWL. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XLG charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for IWL.

Performance

XLG vs. IWL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) and iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XLG achieves a 5.19% return, which is significantly lower than IWL's 7.88% return. Over the past 10 years, XLG has outperformed IWL with an annualized return of 17.03%, while IWL has yielded a comparatively lower 16.17% annualized return.

XLG

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: -1.03%
• YTD: 5.19%
• 6M: 4.76%
• 1Y: 25.02%
• 3Y*: 23.53%
• 5Y*: 15.66%
• 10Y*: 17.03%

IWL

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: 7.88%
• 6M: 7.94%
• 1Y: 25.27%
• 3Y*: 22.49%
• 5Y*: 14.18%
• 10Y*: 16.17%

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

XLG vs. IWL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	5.19%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF	7.88%	19.09%	27.12%	29.77%	-19.89%	27.79%	22.10%	31.42%	-3.30%	22.90%

Correlation

The correlation between XLG and IWL is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 28, 2009	0.92

The correlation between XLG and IWL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

XLG vs. IWL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XLG	IWL
Technology	43.9%	38.2%
Communication Services	17.1%	12.9%
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	10.0%
Financial Services	9.6%	12.0%
Healthcare	7.0%	8.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.8%	5.0%
Energy	2.7%	2.7%
Industrials	1.9%	6.8%
Basic Materials	0.6%	1.4%
Real Estate	-	1.0%
Utilities	-	1.3%

Return for Risk

XLG vs. IWL — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 55
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 49

IWL

IWL Risk / Return Rank: 66
IWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IWL Omega Ratio Rank: 68
IWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
IWL Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

XLG vs. IWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) and iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL). 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.

	XLG	IWL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	2.03	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.51	2.73	-0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.37	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	2.58	-0.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.56	11.38	-3.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XLG vs. IWL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is comparable to the IWL Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLG and IWL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XLG	IWL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.86	2.03	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84	0.83	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.91	0.90	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	0.87	-0.26

Drawdowns

XLG vs. IWL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLG drawdown since its inception was -52.39%, which is greater than IWL's maximum drawdown of -32.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLG and IWL.

Drawdown Indicators

	XLG	IWL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.39%	-32.71%	-19.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.41%	-9.83%	-2.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.70%	-19.15%	-1.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.02%	-25.65%	-2.37%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.46%	-32.71%	+2.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.62%	-2.76%	-0.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.64%	-3.88%	-3.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.32%	2.23%	+1.09%

Volatility

XLG vs. IWL - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) and iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) have volatilities of 4.01% and 3.99%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XLG	IWL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.01%	3.99%	+0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.19%	9.60%	+0.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.57%	12.50%	+1.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.72%	17.21%	+1.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.87%	18.11%	+0.76%

XLG vs. IWL - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLG has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than IWL'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%.

Dividends

XLG vs. IWL - Dividend Comparison

XLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, less than IWL's 0.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF	0.84%	0.90%	1.04%	1.30%	1.54%	1.12%	1.30%	1.96%	1.93%	1.69%	1.96%	2.14%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.61%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XLG and IWL in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, XLG and IWL 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, XLG or IWL?

XLG has higher volatility (4.01%) compared to IWL (3.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XLG dropped -52.39% vs IWL's -32.71%.

Which ETF is better, XLG or IWL?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 17.03% vs 16.17% for IWL. On fees, IWL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XLG or IWL?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.03% return vs 16.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XLG or IWL?

IWL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for XLG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XLG or IWL?

IWL has the higher dividend yield at 0.84%, compared with 0.61% for XLG.

What is the main difference between XLG and IWL?

XLG is categorized as S&P 500, while IWL is Large Cap Growth Equities. XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index, while IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XLG and 0.15% for IWL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.86), 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.