IVW vs IWN: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IVW and IWN are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IVW is iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF, while IWN is iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF. IWN is broader by holdings count, with 1,388 positions versus 151 for IVW. IVW is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWN ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 44.
What is the main difference between IVW and IWN?
IVW puts 54% of its assets in Information Technology, while IWN spreads across 11 sectors with none above 29%.
| Metric | IVW | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.24% |
| Holdings | 151 | 1,388 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.6% | 5.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.38% | 1.54% |
| Average volume | 1,609,623 | 635,121 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +4.9% | +19.1% |
| YTD return | +5.2% | +16.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.2% | +5.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 15.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.4% | -8.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.7% | -26.7% |
| Beta | 1.36 | 0.86 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 1.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 44/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 53/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
IWN leads
IWN leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support IWN, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWN over IVW, 60 versus 44 as of Nov 7, 2026. IWN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while IVW holds the stronger quality profile. IWN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWN today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. IWN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF and iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IVW vs IWN: 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 | IVW | IWN | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.24% | IVW |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 151 | 1,388 | IWN |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.6% | 5.5% | IWN |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.38% | 1.54% | IWN |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.7% | -26.7% | IWN |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.3% | 15.9% | IWN |
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 IVW and IWN 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.
- Value32 vs 62IWN +30
- Momentum24 vs 53IWN +29
- Risk Resilience62 vs 75IWN +13
- Quality65 vs 57IVW +8
4 of 4 evidence groups favor IWN. IWN’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; IVW keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Quality -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
IWN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IVW and IWN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWN (iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
IVW (iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 27% against 18.8%.
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 | IVW | IWN | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.24% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 151 | 1,388 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,609,623 | 635,121 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 15.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.4% | -8.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 1.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.36 | 0.86 | 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
IVW and IWN share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
148 holdings are unique to IVW, and 1,385 holdings are unique to IWN. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IVW is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 59.65% of the fund, against 5.48% for IWN (151 holdings vs 1,388). 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 IVW adds that IWN doesn’t
| Holding | IVW | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 15.08% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 10.16% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.45% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 5.4% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.8% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 4.32% | Not held |
What IWN adds that IVW doesn’t
| Holding | IWN | IVW |
|---|---|---|
| UMBFUMB FINANCIAL | 0.63% | Not held |
| VSATVIASAT INC | 0.6% | Not held |
| CTRECARETRUST REIT | 0.58% | Not held |
| SMSM ENERGY | 0.57% | Not held |
| CYTKCYTOKINETICS | 0.57% | Not held |
| JXNJACKSON FINANCIAL CLASS A | 0.55% | 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.
IVW vs IWN: five-year payout growth
IWN grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.78% a year against IVW's -1.07%. IVW: The 2020 payout was 42.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. IWN: The 2020 payout was 14.5% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | IVW | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -1.07% | 7.78% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.522 | $2.112 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.495 | $3.072 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #130 of 138 | #73 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWN | 44 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWN | Value 32 vs 62 |
| Technicals | IWN | Price vs 50-day -7.4% vs -1.9%; vs 200-day -1.6% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | IWN | Risk Resilience 62 vs 75 |
| 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 IVW and IWN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 IWN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6IWN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWN +16
- 44 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWN +15
- 47 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- IWN +4
- 54 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- IWN +8
- 53 vs 61
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when IVW moved ahead of IWN.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only IVW
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only IWN
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
IVW 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.94%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.18%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1IVW closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWN's edge.
- 2IVW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IWN'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
IWN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IVW | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.5% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.6% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.5% | 0.4% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | 16.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.9% | 19.1% |
Technicals
IWN has the stronger structure| Metric | IVW | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.7 | 55.5 |
| ADX (14) | 31.4 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.4% | -1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.6% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27% | 18.8% |
Risk
IWN is the more resilient| Metric | IVW | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.36 | 0.86 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 1.63 |
| Max drawdown | -13.4% | -8.7% |
| Current drawdown | -11.3% | -7.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 15.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IVW and IWN?
IVW puts 54% of its assets in Information Technology, while IWN spreads across 11 sectors with none above 29%.
How much do IVW and IWN overlap?
IVW and IWN share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 148 holdings are unique to IVW, and 1,385 holdings are unique to IWN. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IVW or IWN?
IWN holds more positions: 1,388 versus 151 for IVW.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IVW has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.24% for IWN.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWN, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.54% against 0.38% for IVW.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IVW has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.3% annualized against 15.9% for IWN.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWN fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.7% against -32.7% for IVW.
Compare IVW and IWN 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.