IVV vs IWO
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IWO delivered stronger 1-year returns. IWO offers more diversification with 1034 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IVV | IWO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.24% | |
| AUM | $865.2B | $14.4B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.09% | 0.42% | |
| Holdings | 508 | 1,125 | |
| YTD Return | +14.50% | +20.08% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.02% | +29.31% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.80% | +18.39% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.37% | +6.40% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 21.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.5% | -60.3% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jul 24, 2000 |
IVV vs IWO Performance
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% while IWO returned +29.31%. Year to date, IVV is up 14.50% versus a gain of 20.08% for IWO.
Over three years, IVV compounded at +21.80% per year against +18.39% for IWO; over five years the annualized figures are +13.37% and +6.40% respectively. Across the full 26-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.07% annualized vs +6.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.6% 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 -60.3% for IWO. 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 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IVV charges 0.03% per year while IWO charges 0.24%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $24 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IVV currently yields 1.09% against 0.42% for IWO.
Holdings Overlap
IVV and IWO share 5 holdings out of 1534 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.7% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IVV or IWO?
IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03% while IWO charges 0.24%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $21 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IVV or IWO?
Over the past year IVV returned +22.02% vs +29.31% for IWO, so IWO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (26 years), IVV annualized +7.07% vs +6.67% for IWO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IVV or IWO?
IWO has been the more volatile fund at 21.6% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: IVV -56.5% vs IWO -60.3%.
Should I hold both IVV and IWO?
IVV and IWO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between IVV and IWO?
IVV and IWO share 5 common holdings with a 0.7% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1534 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IVV or IWO?
IVV yields 1.09% while IWO yields 0.42%, 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.