IWFG vs LRGE
NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF vs ClearBridge Large Cap Growth ESG ETF
Which is better, IWFG or LRGE?
Each has led over a different period.
IWFG has a lower expense ratio. IWFG led over 3Y and the full window, LRGE over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. LRGE is less concentrated, with 60.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IWFG | LRGE |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.46%Best | 0.48% |
| AUM | $27M | $395M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.12% |
| Holdings | 58 | 65 |
| YTD Return | +3.74% | +8.85%Best |
| 1Y Return | +3.78% | +8.34%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.23%Best | +19.15% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.80% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.1% | 17.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -22.0% | -20.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.3 years | $23,226Best | $21,652 |
| Top 10 Weight | 64.2% | 60.0%Best |
| Fund Family | New York Life Investments | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 22, 2022 | May 22, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 23, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (4.3 years).
IWFG vs LRGE growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 4.3 years both funds cover.
IWFG vs LRGE Performance
NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is an ETF from New York Life Investments and ClearBridge Large Cap Growth ESG ETF (LRGE) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year IWFG returned +3.78% while LRGE returned +8.34%. Year to date, IWFG is up 3.74% versus a gain of 8.85% for LRGE.
Over three years, IWFG compounded at +22.23% per year against +19.15% for LRGE. Across the full 4-year window we track, IWFG has the edge at +21.65% annualized vs +19.68%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.1% compared with 17.1% for LRGE. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -22.0% for IWFG and -20.3% for LRGE. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWFG charges 0.46% per year while LRGE charges 0.48%. On a $10,000 position that is $46 vs $48 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWFG currently yields 0.00% against 0.12% for LRGE.
Holdings Overlap
39.1% of IWFG's money is in holdings LRGE also owns. 44.9% of LRGE's money is in holdings IWFG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
7 positions in common, counted across the 27 positions we hold weights for in IWFG and 32 in LRGE, against full books of 58 and 65.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 22 positions for LRGE that do not appear in our book for IWFG (51.2% of the fund), and 18 for IWFG that do not appear in LRGE (58.2%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
44.9% of LRGE is already inside IWFG.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IWFG or LRGE?
IWFG has an expense ratio of 0.46% while LRGE charges 0.48%. IWFG is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWFG or LRGE?
Over the past year IWFG returned +3.78% vs +8.34% for LRGE, so LRGE leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IWFG annualized +21.65% vs +19.68% for LRGE. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWFG or LRGE?
IWFG has been the more volatile fund at 18.1% annualized versus 17.1% for LRGE. Worst drawdown: IWFG -22.0% vs LRGE -20.3%.
Should I hold both IWFG and LRGE?
IWFG and LRGE have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IWFG and LRGE?
44.9% of LRGE's money is in holdings IWFG also owns. 44.9% of LRGE's is in holdings IWFG also owns. They hold 7 positions in common, counted across the 27 positions we hold weights for in IWFG and 32 in LRGE.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWFG or LRGE?
IWFG yields 0.00% while LRGE yields 0.12%, so LRGE currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LRGE better than IWFG?
IWFG has a lower expense ratio. IWFG led over 3Y and the full window, LRGE over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. LRGE is less concentrated, with 60.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.