IWB vs VTI
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IWB or VTI?
Nearly the same fund. VTI costs less.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWB led over 5Y, VTI over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 34.8%.
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 | IWB | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $48.5B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.93% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 1,029 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +12.80% | +13.14%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.16% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.29% | +22.30%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.30%Best | +12.01% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 15.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.4%Best | -56.6% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,861Best | $17,631 |
| Top 10 Weight | 34.8% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 31, 2001 to Sep 23, 2026 (25.3 years).
IWB vs VTI 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 25.3 years both funds cover.
IWB vs VTI Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWB returned +16.16% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, IWB is up 12.80% versus a gain of 13.14% for VTI.
Over three years, IWB compounded at +22.29% per year against +22.30% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +12.30% and +12.01% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.06% annualized vs +7.86%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 15.1% for IWB. 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 -56.4% for IWB and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 1.00. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWB charges 0.15% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $3 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWB currently yields 0.93% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
97.0% of IWB's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 92.8% of VTI's money is in holdings IWB also owns.
Most of IWB is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
815 positions in common, counted across the 853 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 1,029 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 385 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IWB (5.0% of the fund), and 13 for IWB that do not appear in VTI (0.6%).
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 IWB | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.26% | 6.40% | 0.86% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.45% | 6.29% | 0.16% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.31% | 4.79% | 0.52% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.55% | 3.65% | 0.10% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 2.79% | 2.90% | 0.11% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.43% | 2.56% | 0.13% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.25% | 2.31% | 0.06% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.77% | 1.70% | 0.07% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.52% | 1.29% | 0.23% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.51% | 1.22% | 0.29% |
97.0% of IWB is already inside VTI.
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, IWB or VTI?
IWB has an expense ratio of 0.15% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWB or VTI?
Over the past year IWB returned +16.16% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IWB annualized +7.86% vs +8.06% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWB or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 15.1% for IWB. Worst drawdown: IWB -56.4% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both IWB and VTI?
IWB and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 1.00, 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 IWB and VTI?
97.0% of IWB's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 92.8% of VTI's is in holdings IWB also owns. They hold 815 positions in common, counted across the 853 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or VTI?
IWB yields 0.93% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IWB?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWB led over 5Y, VTI over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 34.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.