IWF vs VUG
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
Which is better, IWF or VUG?
Nearly the same fund. VUG costs less.
VUG has a lower expense ratio. VUG led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWF is less concentrated, with 56.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 63.6%.
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 | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $123.8B | $219.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.35% | 0.38% |
| Holdings | 372 | 146 |
| YTD Return | +2.48% | +7.68%Best |
| 1Y Return | +4.44% | +10.35%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.00% | +23.24%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.41% | +11.88%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.0%Best | 16.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -52.0% | -51.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,164 | $17,529Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 56.8%Best | 63.6% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Jan 26, 2004 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 30, 2004 to Sep 16, 2026 (22.6 years).
IWF vs VUG 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 22.6 years both funds cover.
IWF vs VUG Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF (VUG) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWF returned +4.44% while VUG returned +10.35%. Year to date, IWF is up 2.48% versus a gain of 7.68% for VUG.
Over three years, IWF compounded at +21.00% per year against +23.24% for VUG; over five years the annualized figures are +11.41% and +11.88% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, VUG has the edge at +11.12% annualized vs +10.92%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VUG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.5% compared with 16.0% 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 -52.0% for IWF and -51.4% for VUG. 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 VUG 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 0.38% for VUG.
Holdings Overlap
85.0% of IWF's money is in holdings VUG also owns. 94.3% of VUG's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of VUG is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
113 positions in common, counted across the 367 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 147 in VUG, against full books of 372 and 146.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 33 positions for VUG that do not appear in our book for IWF (5.4% of the fund), and 192 for IWF that do not appear in VUG (14.3%).
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 VUG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.45% | 12.81% | 2.64% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.45% | 12.59% | 5.14% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.65% | 9.59% | 3.94% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 5.93% | 5.80% | 0.13% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.17% | 4.46% | 0.71% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 4.78% | 4.62% | 0.16% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.09% | 3.41% | 0.32% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.63% | 5.15% | 4.52% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.22% | 2.44% | 0.78% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.77% | 2.72% | 0.05% |
94.3% of VUG 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 VUG?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while VUG charges 0.03%. VUG is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or VUG?
Over the past year IWF returned +4.44% vs +10.35% for VUG, so VUG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), IWF annualized +10.92% vs +11.12% for VUG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or VUG?
VUG has been the more volatile fund at 16.5% annualized versus 16.0% for IWF. Worst drawdown: IWF -52.0% vs VUG -51.4%.
Should I hold both IWF and VUG?
IWF and VUG 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 VUG?
94.3% of VUG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 94.3% of VUG's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 113 positions in common, counted across the 367 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 147 in VUG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or VUG?
IWF yields 0.35% while VUG yields 0.38%, so VUG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VUG better than IWF?
VUG has a lower expense ratio. VUG led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWF is less concentrated, with 56.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 63.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.