IWD vs IWN: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWD and IWN are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWD is iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF, while IWN is iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF. IWN is broader by holdings count, with 1,388 positions versus 868 for IWD. IWD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between IWD and IWN?
IWD and IWN have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWD | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.24% |
| Holdings | 868 | 1,388 |
| Top-10 concentration | 28.8% | 5.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.37% | 1.54% |
| Average volume | 1,812,873 | 635,121 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +26.1% | +19.1% |
| YTD return | +22.4% | +16.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.1% | +5.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 15.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.1% | -8.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -19% | -26.7% |
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.86 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.77 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.71 | 1.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 65/100 | 53/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
IWD and IWN are effectively level
IWD and IWN are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate IWD and IWN as of Nov 7, 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 Russell 1000 Value ETF and iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWD 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 | IWD | IWN | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.24% | IWD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 868 | 1,388 | IWN |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 28.8% | 5.5% | IWN |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.37% | 1.54% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -19% | -26.7% | IWD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.6% | 15.9% | 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 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.
- Value42 vs 62IWN +20
- Momentum65 vs 53IWD +12
- Quality66 vs 57IWD +9
- Risk Resilience77 vs 75Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
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 IWN 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 | IWD | IWN | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.24% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 868 | 1,388 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,812,873 | 635,121 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 15.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.1% | -8.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.77 | 1.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.68 | 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
IWD and IWN share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
865 holdings are unique to IWD, and 1,385 holdings are unique to IWN. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IWD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 28.76% of the fund, against 5.48% for IWN (868 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 IWD adds that IWN doesn’t
| Holding | IWD | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 6.02% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 5.61% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 4.9% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 2.54% | Not held |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 2.53% | Not held |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 1.83% | Not held |
What IWN adds that IWD doesn’t
| Holding | IWN | IWD |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
IWD vs IWN: five-year payout growth
IWN grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.78% a year against IWD's 4.88%. IWD: The 2020 payout was 16.2% 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 | IWD | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.88% | 7.78% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.805 | $2.112 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.559 | $3.072 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #97 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWN | Value 42 vs 62 |
| Technicals | IWD | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -1.9%; vs 200-day 7.6% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 77 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6IWD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 60 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWD +2
- 64 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- IWD +6
- 64 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- IWD +1
- 62 vs 61
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Nov 5 when IWD 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IWD
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.12%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only IWN
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
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 -0.18%, AIQ 0 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.
Performance
IWD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IWD | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.5% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.1% | 0.4% |
| Year to date | 22.4% | 16.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.1% | 19.1% |
Technicals
IWD has the stronger structure| Metric | IWD | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.8 | 55.5 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.6% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.1% | 18.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IWD | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 0.86 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.77 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.71 | 1.63 |
| Max drawdown | -7.1% | -8.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3% | -7.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 15.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWD and IWN?
IWD and IWN have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWD and IWN overlap?
IWD and IWN share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 865 holdings are unique to IWD, 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, IWD or IWN?
IWN holds more positions: 1,388 versus 868 for IWD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IWD has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.24% for IWN.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.37% for IWD and 1.54% for IWN.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWN has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.9% 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 -26.7% for IWN.
Compare IWD 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.