IWF vs VTI
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IWF or VTI?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 3Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% 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 | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $123.8B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.35% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 372 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +2.48% | +11.06%Best |
| 1Y Return | +4.44% | +15.41%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.00%Best | +20.48% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.41% | +11.52%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.4% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -52.0%Best | -56.6% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,164 | $17,249Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 56.8% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 31, 2001 to Sep 16, 2026 (25.3 years).
IWF 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.
IWF vs VTI Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) 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 IWF returned +4.44% while VTI returned +15.41%. Year to date, IWF is up 2.48% versus a gain of 11.06% for VTI.
Over three years, IWF compounded at +21.00% per year against +20.48% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +11.41% and +11.52% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, IWF has the edge at +8.99% annualized vs +7.99%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.4% compared with 15.3% for VTI. 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 -52.0% for IWF 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 0.96. 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 VTI 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 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
98.7% of IWF's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 62.2% of VTI's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of IWF is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
345 positions in common, counted across the 367 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 372 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 824 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IWF (35.4% of the fund), and 12 for IWF that do not appear in VTI (0.9%).
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 VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.45% | 6.40% | 9.05% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.45% | 6.29% | 1.16% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.65% | 4.79% | 0.86% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 5.93% | 2.90% | 3.03% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.17% | 2.56% | 2.61% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 4.78% | 2.31% | 2.47% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.09% | 1.70% | 1.39% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.24% | 1.29% | 1.95% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.22% | 1.22% | 2.00% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.63% | 3.65% | 3.02% |
98.7% of IWF 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, IWF or VTI?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or VTI?
Over the past year IWF returned +4.44% vs +15.41% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IWF annualized +8.99% vs +7.99% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or VTI?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IWF -52.0% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both IWF and VTI?
IWF and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 VTI?
98.7% of IWF's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 62.2% of VTI's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 345 positions in common, counted across the 367 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or VTI?
IWF yields 0.35% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IWF?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 3Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% 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.