IWF vs VOO
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, IWF or VOO?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 3Y and the full window, VOO over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.8%.
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 | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $123.8B | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.35% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 372 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +4.17% | +12.25%Best |
| 1Y Return | +6.59% | +17.03%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.65%Best | +21.25% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.04% | +13.08%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.9% | 14.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7%Best | -34.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,655 | $18,490Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 56.8% | 37.6%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 9, 2010 to Sep 17, 2026 (16 years).
IWF vs VOO 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 16 years both funds cover.
IWF vs VOO Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWF returned +6.59% while VOO returned +17.03%. Year to date, IWF is up 4.17% versus a gain of 12.25% for VOO.
Over three years, IWF compounded at +21.65% per year against +21.25% for VOO; over five years the annualized figures are +12.04% and +13.08% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, IWF has the edge at +15.69% annualized vs +13.38%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.9% compared with 14.1% for VOO. 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 -34.3% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. 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 VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $3 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.35% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
93.6% of IWF's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 66.4% of VOO's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of IWF is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
174 positions in common, counted across the 367 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 494 in VOO, against full books of 372 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 313 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for IWF (32.8% of the fund), and 137 for IWF that do not appear in VOO (5.8%).
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 VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.45% | 7.55% | 7.90% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.45% | 7.05% | 0.40% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.65% | 5.36% | 0.29% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 5.93% | 3.24% | 2.69% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.17% | 2.86% | 2.31% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 4.78% | 2.62% | 2.16% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.09% | 1.90% | 1.19% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.63% | 4.13% | 3.50% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.24% | 1.44% | 1.80% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.22% | 1.36% | 1.86% |
93.6% of IWF is already inside VOO.
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 VOO?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or VOO?
Over the past year IWF returned +6.59% vs +17.03% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), IWF annualized +15.69% vs +13.38% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or VOO?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 15.9% annualized versus 14.1% for VOO. Worst drawdown: IWF -32.7% vs VOO -34.3%.
Should I hold both IWF and VOO?
IWF and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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 VOO?
93.6% of IWF's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 66.4% of VOO's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 174 positions in common, counted across the 367 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or VOO?
IWF yields 0.35% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than IWF?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 3Y and the full window, VOO over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.