IWLG vs LRGE
NYLIM Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF vs ClearBridge Large Cap Growth ESG ETF
Which is better, IWLG or LRGE?
Nearly the same fund. LRGE costs less.
LRGE has a lower expense ratio. IWLG led over 3Y and the full window, LRGE over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWLG is less concentrated, with 57.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 60.0%.
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 | IWLG | LRGE |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.48%Best |
| AUM | $327M | $395M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.12% |
| Holdings | 82 | 65 |
| YTD Return | +5.96% | +8.85%Best |
| 1Y Return | +6.77% | +8.34%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.06%Best | +19.15% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.80% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.8% | 17.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -23.2% | -20.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.3 years | $22,754Best | $21,652 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.9%Best | 60.0% |
| 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).
IWLG 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.
IWLG vs LRGE Performance
NYLIM Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) 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 IWLG returned +6.77% while LRGE returned +8.34%. Year to date, IWLG is up 5.96% versus a gain of 8.85% for LRGE.
Over three years, IWLG compounded at +22.06% per year against +19.15% for LRGE. Across the full 4-year window we track, IWLG has the edge at +21.07% annualized vs +19.68%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% 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 -23.2% for IWLG 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 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWLG charges 0.50% per year while LRGE charges 0.48%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $48 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWLG currently yields 0.00% against 0.12% for LRGE.
Holdings Overlap
36.6% of IWLG's money is in holdings LRGE also owns. 50.1% of LRGE's money is in holdings IWLG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
9 positions in common, counted across the 37 positions we hold weights for in IWLG and 32 in LRGE, against full books of 82 and 65.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 20 positions for LRGE that do not appear in our book for IWLG (46.0% of the fund), and 24 for IWLG that do not appear in LRGE (57.8%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IWLG | Weight in LRGE | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 14.02% | 16.99% | 2.97% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 4.31% | 6.37% | 2.06% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 3.48% | 6.76% | 3.28% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.08% | 4.72% | 1.64% |
| VVisa Inc | 3.27% | 4.35% | 1.08% |
| ANETArista Networks, Inc. | 3.71% | 3.50% | 0.21% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.21% | 3.86% | 1.65% |
| SPCXSpace Exploration Technologies | 1.84% | 1.46% | 0.38% |
| ORCLOracle Corp. | 0.70% | 2.07% | 1.37% |
50.1% of LRGE is already inside IWLG.
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, IWLG or LRGE?
IWLG has an expense ratio of 0.50% while LRGE charges 0.48%. LRGE is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWLG or LRGE?
Over the past year IWLG returned +6.77% vs +8.34% for LRGE, so LRGE leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IWLG annualized +21.07% vs +19.68% for LRGE. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWLG or LRGE?
IWLG has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 17.1% for LRGE. Worst drawdown: IWLG -23.2% vs LRGE -20.3%.
Should I hold both IWLG and LRGE?
IWLG and LRGE have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 IWLG and LRGE?
50.1% of LRGE's money is in holdings IWLG also owns. 50.1% of LRGE's is in holdings IWLG also owns. They hold 9 positions in common, counted across the 37 positions we hold weights for in IWLG and 32 in LRGE.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWLG or LRGE?
IWLG yields 0.00% while LRGE yields 0.12%, so LRGE currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LRGE better than IWLG?
LRGE has a lower expense ratio. IWLG led over 3Y and the full window, LRGE over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWLG is less concentrated, with 57.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 60.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.