IWF vs VUG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWF and VUG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWF is iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF, while VUG is Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF. IWF is broader by holdings count, with 369 positions versus 150 for VUG. VUG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VUG ahead on AIQ Score, 53 versus 50.
| Metric | IWF | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 369 | 150 |
| Top-10 concentration | 57.1% | 63.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.35% | 0.39% |
| Average volume | 4,495,717 | 6,445,771 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.4% | +11.8% |
| YTD return | +3.5% | +9.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.7% | +12.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 17.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -16.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.7% | -35.6% |
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | 0.74 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 50/100 | 53/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 38/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
VUG leads
VUG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VUG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VUG over IWF, 53 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. VUG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. VUG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VUG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. VUG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWF vs VUG: 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 | IWF | VUG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | VUG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 369 | 150 | IWF |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 57.1% | 63.6% | IWF |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.35% | 0.39% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.7% | -35.6% | IWF |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.9% | 17.9% | 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 IWF and VUG 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.
- Quality70 vs 75VUG +5
- Value27 vs 32VUG +5
- Momentum38 vs 41Even
- Risk Resilience74 vs 72Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VUG. VUG’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
VUG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWF and VUG 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 | IWF | VUG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 369 | 150 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,495,717 | 6,445,771 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 17.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -16.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.47 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.34 | 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
IWF and VUG share 76.52% of their weighted exposure across 113 common holdings.
253 holdings are unique to IWF, and 34 holdings are unique to VUG. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
VUG is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 63.61% of the fund, against 57.13% for IWF (150 holdings vs 369). 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 | IWF | VUG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 15.69% | 12.81% | 12.81% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.43% | 12.6% | 7.43% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.79% | 5.8% | 5.79% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.49% | 9.59% | 5.49% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 4.69% | 4.63% | 4.63% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 5.1% | 4.46% | 4.46% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 3.53% | 3.41% | 3.41% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co | 2.7% | 2.72% | 2.7% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IWF adds that VUG doesn’t
| Holding | IWF | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.48% | Not held |
| CATCATERPILLAR INC | 1.11% | Not held |
| HDHOME DEPOT | 0.69% | Not held |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 0.45% | Not held |
| GLWCORNING | 0.4% | 0.16% |
| LMTLOCKHEED MARTIN CORP | 0.32% | Not held |
What VUG adds that IWF doesn’t
| Holding | VUG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 5.15% | 0.61% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp | 1.19% | 0.53% |
| MCDMcDonald's Corp | 0.55% | Not held |
| STXSeagate Technology Holdings PLC | 0.55% | Not held |
| INTCIntel Corp | 0.52% | Not held |
| TJXTJX Cos Inc/The | 0.5% | 0.19% |
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.
IWF vs VUG: five-year payout growth
VUG grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 3.61% a year against IWF's 1.23%.
| Dividend metric | IWF | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 1.23% | 3.61% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.399 | $0.281 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.424 | $0.335 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #124 of 138 | #112 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 VUG. 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 | 50 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VUG | Value 27 vs 32 |
| Technicals | VUG | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 2.5% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 72 |
| 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 IWF and VUG 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 VUG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VUG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VUG +3
- 50 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- VUG +3
- 54 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- VUG +4
- 58 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- VUG +1
- 61 vs 62
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 27 when IWF moved ahead of VUG.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only VUG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VUG 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 +0.92%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.85%, 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 Quality gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to VUG's edge.
- 2IWF's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3VUG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
VUG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IWF | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.7% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.4% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.2% | 3.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 8.8% |
| Year to date | 3.5% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.4% | 11.8% |
Technicals
VUG has the stronger structure| Metric | IWF | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.2 | 42.7 |
| ADX (14) | 18.8 | 18.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.5% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.3% | 14.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IWF | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | 0.74 |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -16.7% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -4.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 17.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do IWF and VUG overlap?
IWF and VUG share 76.52% of their weighted exposure across 113 common holdings. 253 holdings are unique to IWF, and 34 holdings are unique to VUG. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWF or VUG?
IWF holds more positions: 369 versus 150 for VUG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VUG has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.18% for IWF.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.35% for IWF and 0.39% for VUG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 17.9% annualized for IWF and 17.9% for VUG.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWF fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -32.7% against -35.6% for VUG.
Compare IWF and VUG 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.