ETF comparison
Verified factor-similar pair

EQL vs IWR

These US-listed equity ETFs share verified FF6 US factor exposure. The modeled volatility of their factor-return difference is at or below 3% annualized on both the same 36-month window and a longer factor-history check.

CMA
Current similarity score
81
Factor-similar

The score is 100 for identical fitted exposures and 80 at the 3% modeled tracking-error limit. It includes market and non-market factors; it does not indicate which fund earned or is expected to earn more. How to read this score.

Quick Read

  • EQL has the higher backtested relative Sharpe (1.937 vs 1.219).
  • IWR has the lower published fee (0.18% vs 0.45%).
  • IWR is cheaper on dividend valuation (121 vs 424, where 100 is each fund's historical median).
  • EQL has the stronger regression fit (adjusted R-squared 0.937 vs 0.791).

These are screening signals, not a complete review of portfolio construction, turnover, taxes, or trading quality.

EQL

Alps Equal Sector Weight ETF
CMA
Adj. R2
0.937
Rel. Sharpe
1.937
Mkt beta
0.89
AUM
US$673M
MER
0.45%
Valuation
424

IWR

iShares Russell Midcap ETF
SMB CMA
Adj. R2
0.791
Rel. Sharpe
1.219
Mkt beta
0.96
AUM
US$50.4B
MER
0.18%
Valuation
121

Market beta uses the common 36-month window through 2026-08. Adjusted R² and relative Sharpe describe each fund's separately published full-history model.

Factor Exposure Match

Blue bars compare factor beta magnitude from the same 36 months shown above. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength; dim bars indicate |t| below 1.96. Every factor enters the distance calculation regardless of its t-statistic.

SMB
EQL
+0.16
|t|
+1.6
IWR
+0.33
|t|
+3.2
diff -0.17
HML
EQL
+0.26
|t|
+2.3
IWR
+0.18
|t|
+1.5
diff +0.09
RMW
EQL
-0.00
|t|
-0.0
IWR
-0.03
|t|
-0.3
diff +0.02
CMA
EQL
+0.33
|t|
+2.5
IWR
+0.32
|t|
+2.4
diff +0.01
UMD
EQL
-0.04
|t|
-0.7
IWR
+0.07
|t|
+1.1
diff -0.11

What Happened Over the Same 36 Months

EQL adjusted total-return CAGR
14.92%
IWR adjusted total-return CAGR
16.67%

IWR ahead by 1.75 percentage points/year over 2023-09 through 2026-08. This is the observed difference between annualized compounded returns from adjusted prices, not an expected return or a factor-model estimate.

Historical factor attribution

Signed contribution to EQL minus IWR, percentage points/year, using fitted 36-month exposures and average factor returns over those same months:

Market factor
-1.03
Other factors, combined
+0.15
Total factor-implied difference
-0.88

This arithmetic-average factor attribution excludes the regression intercept and fund-specific return. It therefore need not equal the observed CAGR difference and is not a forecast.

Why This Pair Matches

Modeled factor tracking error · 36m
2.80%/yr
Modeled tracking error · 120m factor history
2.46%/yr
Mkt beta diff
0.07
Rel. Sharpe diff
0.718

Fitted exposures and factor covariance estimate the volatility, not the average or direction, of the funds' modeled return difference. The common regression window is 2023-09 through 2026-08. A short-window estimate and a longer factor-history check must both be at or below 3.000%; this is a screening limit, not a forecast. Holdings, turnover, taxes and trading costs require a separate review. The Sharpe figures elsewhere on this page come from each fund's published full-history model and do not enter similarity ranking. See the full methodology.

EQL fund page IWR fund page US ETF Leaders US Universe
Important context

VerifiedBeta publishes educational ETF research, not personalized investment advice, portfolio management, or security recommendations. Funds that screen well here can still be unsuitable for your objectives, taxes, liquidity needs, or constraints. Review fund documents, methodology assumptions, and your own circumstances before acting. See the full disclaimer.