IVV vs IWFG
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, IVV or IWFG?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Growth.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, IWFG over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.4%.
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 | IWFG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.46% |
| AUM | $886.7B | $62M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.10% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 508 | 30 |
| YTD Return | +13.39%Best | +2.97% |
| 1Y Return | +20.08%Best | +4.19% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.29% | +21.30%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.88% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.7%Best | 18.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.8%Best | -22.0% |
| $10,000 over 4.2 years | $21,551 | $23,092Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.9%Best | 62.4% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | New York Life Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jun 22, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 23, 2022 to Sep 4, 2026 (4.2 years).
IVV vs IWFG 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 4.2 years both funds cover.
IVV vs IWFG Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is an ETF from New York Life Investments. Over the past year IVV returned +20.08% while IWFG returned +4.19%. Year to date, IVV is up 13.39% versus a gain of 2.97% for IWFG.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.29% per year against +21.30% for IWFG. Across the full 4-year window we track, IWFG has the edge at +22.05% annualized vs +20.06%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% compared with 14.7% 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 -18.8% for IVV and -22.0% for IWFG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
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 1.10% against 0.00% for IWFG.
Holdings Overlap
39.3% of IVV's money is in holdings IWFG also owns. 94.2% of IWFG's money is in holdings IVV also owns.
Most of IWFG is already inside IVV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
25 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 27 in IWFG, against full books of 508 and 30.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1 positions for IWFG that do not appear in our book for IVV (2.9% of the fund), and 472 for IVV that do not appear in IWFG (60.0%).
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 IWFG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.98% | 14.95% | 6.97% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.56% | 10.93% | 8.37% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.86% | 4.94% | 1.92% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.44% | 5.34% | 0.10% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.01% | 6.39% | 2.38% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.98% | 4.04% | 1.06% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 1.94% | 3.50% | 1.56% |
| STXSeagate Technology Holdings Plc | 0.28% | 5.02% | 4.74% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.39% | 3.09% | 1.70% |
| GEVGe Vernova, Inc. | 0.41% | 3.88% | 3.47% |
94.2% of IWFG 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 IWFG?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IWFG charges 0.46%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $43 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IVV or IWFG?
Over the past year IVV returned +20.08% vs +4.19% for IWFG, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IVV annualized +20.06% vs +22.05% for IWFG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IVV or IWFG?
IWFG has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 14.7% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -18.8% 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. 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 IWFG?
94.2% of IWFG's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 94.2% of IWFG's is in holdings IVV also owns. They hold 25 positions in common, counted across the 505 positions we hold weights for in IVV and 27 in IWFG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IWFG?
IVV yields 1.10% while IWFG yields 0.00%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWFG better than IVV?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, IWFG over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.