IWR vs VYM
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, IWR or VYM?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. IWR led over the full window, VYM over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. IWR is less concentrated, with 5.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 25.9%.
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 | IWR | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $56.2B | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.13% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 831 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +13.57% | +13.75%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.82% | +19.42%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.61% | +18.22%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.69% | +12.17%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.6% | 14.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -59.7% | -58.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,484 | $17,758Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 5.5%Best | 25.9% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jul 17, 2001 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 16, 2006 to Sep 9, 2026 (19.8 years).
IWR vs VYM 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 19.8 years both funds cover.
IWR vs VYM Performance
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF (IWR) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWR returned +15.82% while VYM returned +19.42%. Year to date, IWR is up 13.57% versus a gain of 13.75% for VYM.
Over three years, IWR compounded at +16.61% per year against +18.22% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +7.69% and +12.17% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IWR has the edge at +8.18% annualized vs +6.94%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.6% compared with 14.5% for VYM. 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 -59.7% for IWR and -58.8% for VYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWR charges 0.18% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $4 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWR currently yields 1.13% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
36.3% of IWR's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 20.7% of VYM's money is in holdings IWR also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
278 positions in common, counted across the 798 positions we hold weights for in IWR and 603 in VYM, against full books of 831 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 293 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for IWR (76.6% of the fund), and 488 for IWR that do not appear in VYM (59.0%).
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 IWR | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 0.57% | 0.31% | 0.26% |
| PSXPhillips 66 | 0.51% | 0.28% | 0.23% |
| ALLAllstate Corp. | 0.46% | 0.25% | 0.21% |
| KMIKinder Morgan In | 0.44% | 0.26% | 0.18% |
| HPEHewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 0.41% | 0.25% | 0.16% |
| TRGPTarga Resources Corp. | 0.40% | 0.24% | 0.16% |
| OKEOneok Inc. | 0.40% | 0.23% | 0.17% |
| CAHCardinal Health Inc. | 0.40% | 0.23% | 0.17% |
| FASTFastenal Co. | 0.40% | 0.23% | 0.17% |
| FFord Motor Co | 0.39% | 0.23% | 0.16% |
36.3% of IWR is already inside VYM.
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, IWR or VYM?
IWR has an expense ratio of 0.18% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWR or VYM?
Over the past year IWR returned +15.82% vs +19.42% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IWR annualized +8.18% vs +6.94% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWR or VYM?
IWR has been the more volatile fund at 17.6% annualized versus 14.5% for VYM. Worst drawdown: IWR -59.7% vs VYM -58.8%.
Should I hold both IWR and VYM?
IWR and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 IWR and VYM?
36.3% of IWR's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 20.7% of VYM's is in holdings IWR also owns. They hold 278 positions in common, counted across the 798 positions we hold weights for in IWR and 603 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWR or VYM?
IWR yields 1.13% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than IWR?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. IWR led over the full window, VYM over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. IWR is less concentrated, with 5.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 25.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.