IWF vs PGRO
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Putnam Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, IWF or PGRO?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 5Y and the full window, PGRO over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.8%.
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 | IWF | PGRO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.49% |
| AUM | $129.6B | $222M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.02% |
| Holdings | 370 | 43 |
| YTD Return | +5.65% | +7.57%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.28% | +8.94%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.37% | +22.58%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.59%Best | +11.60% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.9%Best | 19.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7%Best | -34.7% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,093Best | $17,311 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.4%Best | 58.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Putnam Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | May 25, 2021 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 26, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.4 years).
IWF vs PGRO 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 5.4 years both funds cover.
IWF vs PGRO Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Putnam Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (PGRO) is an ETF from Putnam Investments. Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% while PGRO returned +8.94%. Year to date, IWF is up 5.65% versus a gain of 7.57% for PGRO.
Over three years, IWF compounded at +22.37% per year against +22.58% for PGRO; over five years the annualized figures are +12.59% and +11.60% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PGRO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.5% compared with 18.9% for IWF. 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 -32.7% for IWF and -34.7% for PGRO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWF charges 0.18% per year while PGRO charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $49 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.34% against 0.02% for PGRO.
Holdings Overlap
69.8% of IWF's money is in holdings PGRO also owns. 95.6% of PGRO's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of PGRO is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
36 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 40 in PGRO, against full books of 370 and 43.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for PGRO that do not appear in our book for IWF (3.4% of the fund), and 266 for IWF that do not appear in PGRO (29.7%).
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 IWF | Weight in PGRO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.77% | 14.08% | 1.69% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.77% | 9.39% | 3.62% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.58% | 6.38% | 1.20% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.58% | 5.06% | 0.52% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.68% | 4.75% | 0.07% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.82% | 4.68% | 0.86% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.62% | 3.52% | 0.10% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.69% | 3.90% | 1.21% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.93% | 3.36% | 0.43% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.03% | 2.84% | 0.19% |
95.6% of PGRO is already inside IWF.
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, IWF or PGRO?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while PGRO charges 0.49%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or PGRO?
Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% vs +8.94% for PGRO, so PGRO leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or PGRO?
PGRO has been the more volatile fund at 19.5% annualized versus 18.9% for IWF. Worst drawdown: IWF -32.7% vs PGRO -34.7%.
Should I hold both IWF and PGRO?
IWF and PGRO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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 IWF and PGRO?
95.6% of PGRO's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 95.6% of PGRO's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 36 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 40 in PGRO.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or PGRO?
IWF yields 0.34% while PGRO yields 0.02%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PGRO better than IWF?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 5Y and the full window, PGRO over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.