ESGU vs IJR: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ESGU and IJR are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ESGU is iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF, while IJR is iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF. IJR is broader by holdings count, with 612 positions versus 272 for ESGU. ESGU is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IJR ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 53.
What is the main difference between ESGU and IJR?
ESGU and IJR have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | ESGU | IJR |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 272 | 612 |
| Top-10 concentration | 36.8% | 5.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.92% | 1.24% |
| Average volume | 391,286 | 3,376,029 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.3% | +16.9% |
| YTD return | +12.8% | +14.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.4% | +5.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 16% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.5% | -10% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.1% | -28% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.89 | 0.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.35 | 1.46 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 54/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF vs iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF
IJR leads
IJR leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support IJR, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF
iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IJR over ESGU, 63 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. IJR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ESGU holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IJR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IJR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. IJR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF and iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ESGU vs IJR: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | ESGU | IJR | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.06% | IJR |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 272 | 612 | IJR |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 36.8% | 5.2% | IJR |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.92% | 1.24% | IJR |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.1% | -28% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 16% | ESGU |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ESGU and IJR against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value33 vs 55IJR +22
- Quality56 vs 69IJR +13
- Risk Resilience86 vs 81ESGU +5
- Momentum52 vs 54Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor IJR. IJR’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ESGU keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +16
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
IJR's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ESGU and IJR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IJR (iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ESGU (iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | ESGU | IJR | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 272 | 612 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 391,286 | 3,376,029 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 16% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.5% | -10% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.89 | 0.83 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.94 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
ESGU and IJR share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
269 holdings are unique to ESGU, and 604 holdings are unique to IJR. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ESGU is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 36.75% of the fund, against 5.18% for IJR (272 holdings vs 612). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What ESGU adds that IJR doesn’t
| Holding | ESGU | IJR |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 7.84% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.93% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 5.32% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.62% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 3.37% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.53% | Not held |
What IJR adds that ESGU doesn’t
| Holding | IJR | ESGU |
|---|---|---|
| CORTCORCEPT THERAPEUTICS | 0.58% | Not held |
| VSATVIASAT INC | 0.57% | Not held |
| GKOSGLAUKOS | 0.57% | Not held |
| FORMFORMFACTOR INC | 0.56% | Not held |
| EATBRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC | 0.54% | Not held |
| PTGXPROTAGONIST THERAPEUTICS | 0.5% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
ESGU vs IJR: five-year payout growth
IJR grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.03% a year against ESGU's 6.19%. IJR: The 2020 payout was 15.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. IJR: The payout jumped 71.3% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | ESGU | IJR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.19% | 11.03% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.090 | $1.024 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.472 | $1.727 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #83 of 138 | #52 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IJR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IJR | 53 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IJR | Value 33 vs 55 |
| Technicals | ESGU | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs -2.8%; vs 200-day 6.1% vs 0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ESGU | Risk Resilience 86 vs 81 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ESGU and IJR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on IJR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IJR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IJR +10
- 53 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- IJR +6
- 55 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- IJR +2
- 55 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- IJR +7
- 60 vs 67
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only ESGU
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only IJR
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
ESGU is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.63%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.09%, AIQ +4 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ESGU closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to IJR's edge.
- 2ESGU's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3IJR's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ESGU | IJR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.6% | -5.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.6% | 1.9% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 14.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.3% | 16.9% |
Technicals
ESGU has the stronger structure| Metric | ESGU | IJR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.1 | 56.3 |
| ADX (14) | 12.7 | 39.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | -2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.1% | 0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.6% | 13.1% |
Risk
ESGU is the more resilient| Metric | ESGU | IJR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.89 | 0.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.35 | 1.46 |
| Max drawdown | -9.5% | -10% |
| Current drawdown | -1.5% | -8.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 16% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between ESGU and IJR?
ESGU and IJR have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do ESGU and IJR overlap?
ESGU and IJR share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 269 holdings are unique to ESGU, and 604 holdings are unique to IJR. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, ESGU or IJR?
IJR holds more positions: 612 versus 272 for ESGU.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IJR has the lower expense ratio, 0.06% a year against 0.15% for ESGU.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IJR, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.24% against 0.92% for ESGU.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IJR has been more volatile over the past year, at 16% annualized against 13% for ESGU.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -26.1% for ESGU and -28% for IJR.
Compare ESGU and IJR with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.