IVW vs MTUM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IVW and MTUM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IVW is iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF, while MTUM is iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF. IVW is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has MTUM ahead on AIQ Score, 52 versus 44.
What is the main difference between IVW and MTUM?
IVW and MTUM both concentrate in Information Technology, at 54% and 52% of assets, and 26% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IVW | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 151 | 128 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.6% | 35.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.38% | 0.73% |
| Average volume | 1,609,623 | 1,468,769 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +4.9% | +2% |
| YTD return | +5.2% | +1.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.2% | +6.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 29.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.4% | -27.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.7% | -32.1% |
| Beta | 1.36 | 1.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 0.16 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 44/100 | 52/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 23/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 42/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
MTUM leads
MTUM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from IVW.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support MTUM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTUM over IVW, 52 versus 44 as of Nov 7, 2026. MTUM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while IVW holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MTUM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MTUM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. MTUM lead: Reversed — IVW led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTUM now leads by 8.
Compare iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IVW vs MTUM: 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 | MTUM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% | MTUM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 151 | 128 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.6% | 35.6% | MTUM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.38% | 0.73% | MTUM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.7% | -32.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.3% | 29.1% | IVW |
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 MTUM 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 72MTUM +40
- Risk Resilience62 vs 42IVW +20
- Quality65 vs 61IVW +4
- Momentum24 vs 23Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor MTUM. MTUM’s edge is concentrated in value; IVW keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +40
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: MTUM moved ahead of IVW in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IVW and MTUM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
IVW (iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, 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 | IVW | MTUM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 151 | 128 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,609,623 | 1,468,769 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 29.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.4% | -27.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.12 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.36 | 1.67 | 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 MTUM share 25.88% of their weighted exposure across 49 common holdings.
99 holdings are unique to IVW, and 76 holdings are unique to MTUM. 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 35.64% for MTUM (151 holdings vs 128). 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 | IVW | MTUM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.23% | 5.37% | 3.23% |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 5.4% | 2.62% | 2.62% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 2.37% | 5.46% | 2.37% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 4.32% | 2.08% | 2.08% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 1.1% | 2.4% | 1.1% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 1.06% | 3.32% | 1.06% |
| CATCATERPILLAR INC | 1.04% | 2.13% | 1.04% |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIAL INC | 1.04% | 2.9% | 1.04% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IVW adds that MTUM doesn’t
| Holding | IVW | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 15.08% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 10.16% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.45% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 5.4% | 2.62% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.8% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 4.32% | 2.08% |
What MTUM adds that IVW doesn’t
| Holding | MTUM | IVW |
|---|---|---|
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 5.46% | 2.37% |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 4.3% | Not held |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 3.47% | 0.64% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.32% | 1.06% |
| SNDKSANDISK | 3.17% | 0.73% |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIAL INC | 2.9% | 1.04% |
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 MTUM: five-year payout growth
MTUM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.14% 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. MTUM: The 2020 payout was 27.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. MTUM: The payout jumped 162.8% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | IVW | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -1.07% | 11.14% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.522 | $1.340 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.495 | $2.273 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #130 of 138 | #50 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 MTUM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MTUM | 44 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MTUM | Value 32 vs 72 |
| Technicals | IVW | Price vs 50-day -7.4% vs -15.8%; vs 200-day -1.6% vs -11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | IVW | Risk Resilience 62 vs 42 |
| 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 MTUM 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 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 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 MTUM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6MTUM lead: Reversed — IVW led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTUM now leads by 8.
- Today
- MTUM +8
- 44 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- IVW +5
- 47 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- IVW +10
- 54 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- IVW +7
- 53 vs 46
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Nov 6 when MTUM moved ahead of IVW.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MTUM
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MTUM 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.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.85%, AIQ +12 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 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTUM's edge.
- 2IVW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MTUM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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
IVW leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IVW | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -9.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.5% | -15.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.6% | -11.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.5% | -9.9% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.9% | 2% |
Technicals
IVW has the stronger structure| Metric | IVW | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.7 | 28.3 |
| ADX (14) | 31.4 | 36.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.4% | -15.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.6% | -11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27% | 41.6% |
Risk
IVW is the more resilient| Metric | IVW | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.36 | 1.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 0.16 |
| Max drawdown | -13.4% | -27.5% |
| Current drawdown | -11.3% | -26.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 29.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IVW and MTUM?
IVW and MTUM both concentrate in Information Technology, at 54% and 52% of assets, and 26% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IVW and MTUM overlap?
IVW and MTUM share 25.88% of their weighted exposure across 49 common holdings. 99 holdings are unique to IVW, and 76 holdings are unique to MTUM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IVW or MTUM?
They hold a similar number of positions: 151 for IVW and 128 for MTUM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
MTUM has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.18% for IVW.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
MTUM, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.73% against 0.38% for IVW.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MTUM has been more volatile over the past year, at 29.1% annualized against 19.3% for IVW.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -32.7% for IVW and -32.1% for MTUM.
Compare IVW and MTUM 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.