IVV vs IWF
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or IWF?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and 5Y, IWF over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.8%.
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 | IVV | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.18% |
| AUM | $876.4B | $123.8B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 508 | 372 |
| YTD Return | +11.03%Best | +2.48% |
| 1Y Return | +15.62%Best | +4.44% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.81% | +21.00%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.61%Best | +11.41% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 17.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5%Best | -66.8% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,109Best | $17,164 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.8%Best | 56.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 26, 2000 to Sep 16, 2026 (26.3 years).
IVV vs IWF 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 26.3 years both funds cover.
IVV vs IWF Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +15.62% while IWF returned +4.44%. Year to date, IVV is up 11.03% versus a gain of 2.48% for IWF.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +20.81% per year against +21.00% for IWF; over five years the annualized figures are +12.61% and +11.41% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IWF has the edge at +7.30% annualized vs +7.01%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.4% compared with 15.1% for IVV. 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 -56.5% for IVV and -66.8% for IWF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $18 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.06% against 0.35% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
66.2% of IVV's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 93.5% of IWF's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of IWF is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
173 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 367 in IWF, against full books of 508 and 372.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 136 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for IVV (5.9% of the fund), and 309 for IVV that do not appear in IWF (32.4%).
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 IVV | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.07% | 15.45% | 7.38% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.02% | 7.45% | 0.43% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.69% | 5.65% | 0.04% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.00% | 5.93% | 2.93% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.65% | 5.17% | 2.52% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.39% | 4.78% | 2.39% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.90% | 3.09% | 1.19% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.63% | 3.24% | 1.61% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.56% | 3.22% | 1.66% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.84% | 0.63% | 3.21% |
93.5% of IWF is already inside IVV.
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, IVV or IWF?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IWF charges 0.18%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or IWF?
Over the past year IVV returned +15.62% vs +4.44% for IWF, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IVV annualized +7.01% vs +7.30% for IWF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or IWF?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 17.4% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs IWF -66.8%.
Should I hold both IVV and IWF?
IVV and IWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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 IVV and IWF?
93.5% of IWF's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 93.5% of IWF's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 173 positions in common, counted across the 490 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 367 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IWF?
IVV yields 1.06% while IWF yields 0.35%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y and 5Y, IWF over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.