IVV vs IWFG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | IWFG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.46% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $59M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 0.00% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 30 | |
| YTD Return | +14.50% | +5.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.02% | +6.05% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.80% | +22.75% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.37% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 18.5% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -22.0% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | New York Life Investments | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jun 22, 2022 |
IVV vs IWFG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is a ETF from New York Life Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% while IWFG returned +6.05%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.50% versus a gain of 5.28% for IWFG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.80% per year against +22.75% for IWFG. Across the full 4-year window we track, IWFG has the edge at +23.06% annualized vs +7.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.5% 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 -22.0% for IWFG. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. 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 IWFG charges 0.46%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $46 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.00% for IWFG.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and IWFG share 25 holdings out of 508 unique holdings combined, representing a 37.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or IWFG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IWFG charges 0.46%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $43 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or IWFG?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% vs +6.05% for IWFG, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +7.07% vs +23.06% for IWFG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or IWFG?
IWFG has been the more volatile fund at 18.5% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs IWFG -22.0%.
Should I hold both IVV and IWFG?
IVV and IWFG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and IWFG?
IVV and IWFG share 25 common holdings with a 37.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 508 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IWFG?
IVV yields 1.09% while IWFG yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.