IWFG vs VOO

IWFG vs VOO

Which is better, IWFG or VOO?

Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.

VOO has a lower expense ratio. IWFG led over 3Y and the full window, VOO over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. VOO is less concentrated, with 36.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.4%.

Lower Fees: VOOHigher Returns: splitLess Concentrated: VOO

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

MetricIWFGVOO
Expense Ratio0.46%0.03%Best
AUM$62M$997.4B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.08%
Holdings30509
YTD Return+2.97%+13.37%Best
1Y Return+4.19%+20.08%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+21.30%Best+21.29%
5Y Return (annualized)-+12.89%
Volatility (annualized)18.2%14.6%Best
Max Drawdown-22.0%-18.7%Best
$10,000 over 4.2 years$23,092Best$21,544
Top 10 Weight62.4%36.4%Best
Fund FamilyNew York Life InvestmentsVanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Blend
InceptionJun 22, 2022Sep 7, 2010

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 23, 2022 to Sep 4, 2026 (4.2 years).

IWFG 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 4.2 years both funds cover.

IWFG vs VOO Performance

NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is an ETF from New York Life Investments and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWFG returned +4.19% while VOO returned +20.08%. Year to date, IWFG is up 2.97% versus a gain of 13.37% for VOO.

Over three years, IWFG compounded at +21.30% per year against +21.29% for VOO. Across the full 4-year window we track, IWFG has the edge at +22.05% annualized vs +20.05%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

IWFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% compared with 14.6% 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 -22.0% for IWFG and -18.7% 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 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.

Fees and Cost Over Time

IWFG charges 0.46% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $46 vs $3 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWFG currently yields 0.00% against 1.08% for VOO.

Holdings Overlap

IWFG already in VOO94.2%
VOO already in IWFG37.3%

94.2% of IWFG's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 37.3% of VOO's money is in holdings IWFG also owns.

Most of IWFG is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

The two holdings books were reported 49 days apart, IWFG as of Aug 18, 2026 and VOO as of Jun 30, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.

25 positions in common, counted across the 27 positions we hold weights for in IWFG and 505 in VOO, against full books of 30 and 509.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 472 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for IWFG (62.2% of the fund), and 1 for IWFG that do not appear in VOO (2.9%).

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

StockWeight in IWFGWeight in VOODifference
NVDANvidia Corp.14.95%7.51%7.44%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C10.93%2.59%8.34%
AAPLApple, Inc4.94%6.59%1.65%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc6.39%3.62%2.77%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 375.34%4.30%1.04%
AVGOBroadcom Inc4.04%2.77%1.27%
METAMeta Platform Inc 3.50%1.92%1.58%
STXSeagate Technology Holdings Plc5.02%0.34%4.68%
LLYEli Lilly & Co.3.09%1.47%1.62%
GEVGe Vernova, Inc.3.88%0.49%3.39%

94.2% of IWFG 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.

IWFGVOO

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, IWFG or VOO?

IWFG has an expense ratio of 0.46% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $43 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, IWFG or VOO?

Over the past year IWFG returned +4.19% vs +20.08% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IWFG annualized +22.05% vs +20.05% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, IWFG or VOO?

IWFG has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 14.6% for VOO. Worst drawdown: IWFG -22.0% vs VOO -18.7%.

Should I hold both IWFG and VOO?

IWFG and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 IWFG and VOO?

94.2% of IWFG's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 37.3% of VOO's is in holdings IWFG also owns. They hold 25 positions in common, counted across the 27 positions we hold weights for in IWFG and 505 in VOO.

Which pays a higher dividend, IWFG or VOO?

IWFG yields 0.00% while VOO yields 1.08%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VOO better than IWFG?

VOO has a lower expense ratio. IWFG led over 3Y and the full window, VOO over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. VOO is less concentrated, with 36.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 62.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.