IJR vs IWB ETF Comparison
Compare IJR and IWB across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between IJR and IWB?
IJR is iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF, while IWB is iShares Russell 1000 ETF. IJR is tied to Equity; IWB is tied to Equity. IWB is broader by holdings count, with 1,017 positions versus 603 for IJR. IWB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | IJR | IWB | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.06% | 0.15% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $109.1B | $48.7B | Fund |
| Holdings | 603 | 1,017 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 9.7% | 53.9% | Fund |
| Average volume | 5,614,016 | 1,068,462 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 12.9% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -8.8% | -9.1% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.98 | 1.00 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.13 | 1.15 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.94 | 1.67 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 57/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 7/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 30/100 | 56/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 85/100 | 88/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
IJR and IWB are effectively level
IJR and IWB are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate IJR and IWB as of Sep 5, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare IJR and IWB 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.
- Momentum25%30 vs 56IWB +26
- Value30%53 vs 37IJR +16
- Quality30%69 vs 61IJR +8
- Risk Resilience15%85 vs 88Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No new signals fired.
IJR's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IJR and IWB both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IJRIJR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
IWBIWB on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
IWBIWB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | IJR | IWB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.06% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $109.1B | $48.7B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 669 | 1,018 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,614,016 | 1,068,462 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 12.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -8.8% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.13 | 1.15 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.98 | 1.00 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
IJR and IWB share 0.63% of their weighted exposure across 57 common holdings.
IWB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 53.87% of the fund, against 9.74% for IJR (1017 holdings vs 603). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
546 holdings are unique to IJR and 960 to IWB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | IJR | IWB | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CORTCORCEPT THERAPEUTICS | 1.16% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| TFXTELEFLEX | 0.61% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| RALRALLIANT | 0.84% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| LWLAMB WESTON HOLDINGS | 0.75% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| VIRTVIRTU FINANCIAL INC CLASS A | 0.5% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| EMNEASTMAN CHEMICAL | 0.88% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| LKQLKQ CORP | 0.67% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| KMXCARMAX INC | 0.86% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, IJR or IWB?
IWB currently has more reported holdings, with 1,017 positions versus 603.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IJR has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IJR has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IJR has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
The current AlgovestIQ evidence does not show a clear leader.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IJR | Value 53 vs 37 |
| Technicals | IWB | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day 8.3% vs 8.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 85 vs 88 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3IJR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- IJR +2
- 58 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- IJR +4
- 67 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- IJR +9
- 68 vs 59
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.68%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.06%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.28%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.37%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.37%, AIQ +3 points).
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.
Technicals
IWB has the stronger structure| Metric | IJR | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.3 | 46 |
| ADX (14) | 20.6 | 13.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.3% | 8.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.9% | 8.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IJR | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.98 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.13 | 1.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.94 | 1.67 |
| Max drawdown | -8.8% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -0.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 12.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better value, IJR or IWB?
IJR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IJR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, IJR or IWB?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, IJR or IWB?
IWB on the Momentum factor, by 26 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, IJR or IWB?
IWB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IWB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is IJR more profitable than IWB?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about IJR and IWB?
IJR: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IWB: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on IJR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IWB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IJR and IWB with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.