ITOT vs IWB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
ITOT and IWB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ITOT is iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF, while IWB is iShares Russell 1000 ETF. ITOT is broader by holdings count, with 2,438 positions versus 1,021 for IWB. ITOT has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has ITOT ahead on AIQ Score, 56 versus 54.
What is the main difference between ITOT and IWB?
ITOT and IWB hold essentially the same portfolio: 95% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | ITOT | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 2,438 | 1,021 |
| Top-10 concentration | 33.9% | 35.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.01% | 0.91% |
| Average volume | 1,619,536 | 522,878 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.8% | +15.8% |
| YTD return | +12.6% | +12.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.4% | +11.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -9.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.4% | -25.2% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 1.34 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 52/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
ITOT leads
ITOT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from IWB.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support ITOT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ITOT over IWB, 56 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. ITOT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. ITOT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor ITOT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ITOT lead: Reversed — IWB led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ITOT now leads by 2.
Compare iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
ITOT vs IWB: 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 | ITOT | IWB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.15% | ITOT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2,438 | 1,021 | ITOT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 33.9% | 35.1% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.01% | 0.91% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.4% | -25.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 12.8% | Similar |
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 ITOT 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.
- Quality66 vs 60ITOT +6
- Value35 vs 34Even
- Momentum51 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience87 vs 87Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor ITOT. ITOT’s edge is concentrated in quality.
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 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ITOT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ITOT and IWB both carry a full feed there.
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 | ITOT | IWB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2,438 | 1,021 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,619,536 | 522,878 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.1% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.86 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.00 | 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
ITOT and IWB share 95.18% of their weighted exposure across 987 common holdings.
1,445 holdings are unique to ITOT, and 30 holdings are unique to IWB. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
IWB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 35.08% of the fund, against 33.85% for ITOT (1,021 holdings vs 2,438). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | ITOT | IWB | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 7.33% | 7.4% | 7.33% |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.27% | 6.47% | 6.27% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 4.94% | 5.18% | 4.94% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.34% | 3.47% | 3.34% |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 2.62% | 2.73% | 2.62% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.33% | 2.4% | 2.33% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 2.1% | 2.21% | 2.1% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 1.94% | 2.04% | 1.94% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What ITOT adds that IWB doesn’t
| Holding | ITOT | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| STXSEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC | 0.27% | Not held |
| TELTE CONNECTIVITY PLC | 0.08% | Not held |
| 0EDE.LNXP SEMICONDUCTORS NV | 0.08% | Not held |
| AMRZ.SWAMRIZE AG | 0.03% | Not held |
| GKOSGLAUKOS | 0.01% | Not held |
| CYTKCYTOKINETICS | 0.01% | Not held |
What IWB adds that ITOT doesn’t
| Holding | IWB | ITOT |
|---|---|---|
| 639.DESPOTIFY TECHNOLOGY | 0.12% | Not held |
| ANG.JOANGLOGOLD ASHANTI PLC | 0.08% | Not held |
| NUNU HOLDINGS CLASS A | 0.07% | Not held |
| QSR.TORESTAURANTS BRANDS INTERNATIONAL | 0.04% | Not held |
| SCCOSOUTHERN COPPER CORP | 0.03% | Not held |
| BAM.TOBROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT VOTING | 0.03% | 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.
ITOT vs IWB: five-year payout growth
ITOT grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.17% a year against IWB's 5.16%. ITOT never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IWB did in 1 year. ITOT: The 2020 payout was 10.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | ITOT | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.17% | 5.16% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.219 | $2.899 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.644 | $3.729 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #84 of 138 | #93 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
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor ITOT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 34 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs 0.5%; vs 200-day 5.4% vs 5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 87 vs 87 |
| 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 ITOT and IWB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 ITOT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ITOT lead: Reversed — IWB led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ITOT now leads by 2.
- Today
- ITOT +2
- 56 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- IWB +2
- 55 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- IWB +2
- 55 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- ITOT +1
- 64 vs 63
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when ITOT moved ahead of IWB.
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 / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only ITOT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ITOT leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 +0.59%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.59%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1IWB closes the Quality gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITOT's edge.
- 2IWB generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3ITOT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | ITOT | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | 2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.4% | 8.8% |
| Year to date | 12.6% | 12.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.8% | 15.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ITOT | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.6 | 56.1 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 12.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | 0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.4% | 5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.4% | 9.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ITOT | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 1.34 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -1.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.3% | -1.3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between ITOT and IWB?
ITOT and IWB hold essentially the same portfolio: 95% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do ITOT and IWB overlap?
ITOT and IWB share 95.18% of their weighted exposure across 987 common holdings. 1,445 holdings are unique to ITOT, and 30 holdings are unique to IWB. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, ITOT or IWB?
ITOT holds more positions: 2,438 versus 1,021 for IWB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
ITOT has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.15% for IWB.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.01% for ITOT and 0.91% for IWB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13% annualized for ITOT and 12.8% for IWB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -25.4% for ITOT and -25.2% for IWB.
Compare ITOT and IWB 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.