IWM vs VTI
iShares Russell 2000 ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IWM or VTI?
Small Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWM led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.
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 | IWM | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $79.0B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.91% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 1,996 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +16.23%Best | +14.05% |
| 1Y Return | +18.72%Best | +16.93% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.96% | +22.65%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.77% | +12.46%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.9% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -59.9% | -56.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,875 | $17,988Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 3.2%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | 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 22, 2026 (25.3 years).
IWM 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.
IWM vs VTI Performance
iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) 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 IWM returned +18.72% while VTI returned +16.93%. Year to date, IWM is up 16.23% versus a gain of 14.05% for VTI.
Over three years, IWM compounded at +18.96% per year against +22.65% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +6.77% and +12.46% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.09% annualized vs +7.48%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.9% 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 -59.9% for IWM 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 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWM charges 0.19% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $3 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWM currently yields 0.91% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
92.9% of IWM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 2.7% of VTI's money is in holdings IWM also owns.
Most of IWM is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
1,792 positions in common, counted across the 1,956 positions we hold weights for in IWM and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 1,996 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 904 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IWM (94.8% of the fund), and 70 for IWM that do not appear in VTI (3.8%).
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 IWM | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MOG.AMoog Inccommon Stock | 0.37% | 0.02% | 0.35% |
| UMBFUmb Financial Corp. | 0.34% | 0.01% | 0.33% |
| CYTKCytokinetics Inc | 0.33% | 0.01% | 0.32% |
| VSATViasat Inc | 0.32% | 0.01% | 0.31% |
| BTSGBrightspring Health | 0.32% | 0.01% | 0.31% |
| GKOSGlaukos Corp. | 0.31% | 0.01% | 0.30% |
| EATBrinker International, Inc. | 0.31% | 0.01% | 0.30% |
| ONBOld National Bancorp/In Common Stock | 0.30% | 0.01% | 0.29% |
| COMPSturm Ruger & Company Inc. | 0.29% | 0.01% | 0.28% |
| CTRECaretrust Reit Inc Reit Usd.01 | 0.29% | 0.01% | 0.28% |
92.9% of IWM 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, IWM or VTI?
IWM has an expense ratio of 0.19% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWM or VTI?
Over the past year IWM returned +18.72% vs +16.93% for VTI, so IWM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IWM annualized +7.48% vs +8.09% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWM or VTI?
IWM has been the more volatile fund at 19.9% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IWM -59.9% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both IWM and VTI?
IWM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, 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 IWM and VTI?
92.9% of IWM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 2.7% of VTI's is in holdings IWM also owns. They hold 1,792 positions in common, counted across the 1,956 positions we hold weights for in IWM and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWM or VTI?
IWM yields 0.91% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IWM?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWM led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.