IWD vs IWF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWD and IWF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWD is iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF, while IWF is iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF. IWD is broader by holdings count, with 868 positions versus 369 for IWF. IWF is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWD ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 45.
What is the main difference between IWD and IWF?
IWF puts 56% of its assets in Information Technology, while IWD spreads across 11 sectors with none above 20%.
| Metric | IWD | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 868 | 369 |
| Top-10 concentration | 28.8% | 57.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.37% | 0.39% |
| Average volume | 1,812,873 | 4,481,172 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +26.1% | -6.9% |
| YTD return | +22.4% | -5.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.1% | +8.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 19.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.1% | -14.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -19% | -32.7% |
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.77 | -0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.71 | -0.54 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 45/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 65/100 | 23/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 62/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
IWD leads
IWD leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support IWD, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWD over IWF, 60 versus 45 as of Nov 7, 2026. IWD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while IWF holds the stronger quality profile. IWD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWD today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IWD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWD vs IWF: 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 | IWD | IWF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.18% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 868 | 369 | IWD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 28.8% | 57.1% | IWD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.37% | 0.39% | IWD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -19% | -32.7% | IWD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.6% | 19.3% | IWD |
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 IWD and IWF 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.
- Momentum65 vs 23IWD +42
- Risk Resilience77 vs 62IWD +15
- Value42 vs 30IWD +12
- Quality66 vs 70IWF +4
4 of 4 evidence groups favor IWD. IWD’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; IWF 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: Momentum -2
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
IWD's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWD and IWF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWD (iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 25.3% against 15.1%.
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 | IWD | IWF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 868 | 369 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,812,873 | 4,481,172 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 19.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.1% | -14.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.77 | -0.39 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.33 | 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
IWD and IWF share 17.59% of their weighted exposure across 214 common holdings.
651 holdings are unique to IWD, and 152 holdings are unique to IWF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IWF is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 57.13% of the fund, against 28.76% for IWD (369 holdings vs 868). 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 | IWD | IWF | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE | 5.61% | 7.43% | 5.61% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 4.9% | 5.49% | 4.9% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 0.7% | 3.53% | 0.7% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 6.02% | 0.61% | 0.61% |
| COSTCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP | 0.6% | 0.53% | 0.53% |
| HDHOME DEPOT | 0.22% | 0.69% | 0.22% |
| TJXTJX | 0.2% | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 0.17% | 0.45% | 0.17% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IWD adds that IWF doesn’t
| Holding | IWD | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 6.02% | 0.61% |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 2.54% | Not held |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 2.53% | Not held |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 1.83% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 1.73% | Not held |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 1.3% | Not held |
What IWF adds that IWD doesn’t
| Holding | IWF | IWD |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 15.69% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 5.79% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 5.1% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 4.69% | Not held |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 3.53% | 0.7% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.48% | 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.
IWD vs IWF: five-year payout growth
IWD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 4.88% a year against IWF's 1.23%. IWD: The 2020 payout was 16.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | IWD | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.88% | 1.23% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.805 | $0.399 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.559 | $0.424 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #97 of 138 | #124 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 IWD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWD | 60 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWD | Value 42 vs 30 |
| Technicals | IWD | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -9.1%; vs 200-day 7.6% vs -6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | IWD | Risk Resilience 77 vs 62 |
| 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 IWD and IWF 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 15 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 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 IWD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6IWD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWD +15
- 60 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- IWD +19
- 64 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- IWD +10
- 64 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- IWD +6
- 62 vs 56
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IWD
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.12%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only IWF
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
IWD 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 down over the latest session (price -0.36%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.26%, 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.
- 1IWF closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWD's edge.
- 2IWF's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IWD'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
IWD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IWD | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.5% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0% | -10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.1% | -9.5% |
| Year to date | 22.4% | -5.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.1% | -6.9% |
Technicals
IWD has the stronger structure| Metric | IWD | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.8 | 29.2 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 34.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.6% | -6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.1% | 25.3% |
Risk
IWD is the more resilient| Metric | IWD | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.77 | -0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.71 | -0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -7.1% | -14.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3% | -13.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 19.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWD and IWF?
IWF puts 56% of its assets in Information Technology, while IWD spreads across 11 sectors with none above 20%.
How much do IWD and IWF overlap?
IWD and IWF share 17.59% of their weighted exposure across 214 common holdings. 651 holdings are unique to IWD, and 152 holdings are unique to IWF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWD or IWF?
IWD holds more positions: 868 versus 369 for IWF.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.18% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.37% against 0.39% for IWF.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWF has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.3% annualized against 11.6% for IWD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWD fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -19% against -32.7% for IWF.
Compare IWD and IWF 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.