IWB vs VTI
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IWB | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $47.8B | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.92% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 1,029 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +13.58% | +14.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.15% | +22.19% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.22% | +21.27% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.45% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.3% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.4% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | May 24, 2001 |
IWB vs VTI Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWB returned +21.15% while VTI returned +22.19%. Year to date, IWB is up 13.58% versus a gain of 14.22% for VTI.
Over three years, IWB compounded at +21.22% per year against +21.27% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +12.45% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.14% annualized vs +7.14%. 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 15.3% 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 worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
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 0.92% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
IWB and VTI share 730 holdings out of 2937 unique holdings combined, representing a 87.9% weight overlap.
High overlap means holding both may not provide much additional diversification.
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. On a $10,000 investment, that is $12 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IWB or VTI?
Over the past year IWB returned +21.15% vs +22.19% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IWB annualized +7.14% vs +8.14% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IWB or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 15.3% 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. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IWB and VTI?
IWB and VTI share 730 common holdings with a 87.9% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2937 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or VTI?
IWB yields 0.92% while VTI yields 1.07%, so VTI 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.