IWMI vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWMI and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWMI is NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 4 for IWMI. VTI has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTI ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 52.
What is the main difference between IWMI and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to IWMI's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWMI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.76% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 4 | 3,524 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 14.86% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 423,424 | 3,115,564 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -0.4% | +15.8% |
| YTD return | +0.3% | +12.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.6% | -9.2% |
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 41/100 | 51/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
VTI leads
VTI leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VTI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTI over IWMI, 60 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while IWMI holds the stronger value profile. VTI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWMI vs VTI: 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 | IWMI | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.76% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 4 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 14.86% | 1.05% | IWMI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -10.6% | -9.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.4% | 13% | VTI |
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 IWMI and VTI 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.
- Quality44 vs 74VTI +30
- Value56 vs 42IWMI +14
- Momentum41 vs 51VTI +10
- Risk Resilience81 vs 86VTI +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VTI. VTI’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; IWMI keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
VTI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWMI and VTI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTI (Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
IWMI (NEOS Russell 2000 High Income ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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 | IWMI | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.76% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 4 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 423,424 | 3,115,564 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.6% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.86 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.02 | 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
IWMI and VTI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
3 holdings are unique to IWMI, and 3,499 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
What IWMI adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | IWMI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| VTWOVanguard Russell 2000 ETF | 98.67% | Not held |
| RUT 261016C03005000RUT US 10/16/26 C3005 | 0.23% | Not held |
| RUT 261016C03050000RUT US 10/16/26 C3050 | 0.12% | Not held |
What VTI adds that IWMI doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | IWMI |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.79% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 3.65% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | 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.
IWMI vs VTI: five-year payout growth
VTI grew its split-adjusted payout at 6.28% a year over 2020-2025. IWMI began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | IWMI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $6.842 | $3.757 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #81 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VTI | 52 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWMI | Value 56 vs 42 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day -4% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VTI | Risk Resilience 81 vs 86 |
| 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 IWMI and VTI 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.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 VTI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTI +8
- 52 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- VTI +9
- 50 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +12
- 48 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only IWMI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.66%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling.
VTI 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.89%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1IWMI closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTI's edge.
- 2IWMI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate VTI's advantage entirely.
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
VTI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IWMI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.4% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.5% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | 0.3% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.4% | 15.8% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | IWMI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.6 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 41 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.3% | 9.8% |
Risk
VTI is the more resilient| Metric | IWMI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.97 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -9% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.4% | 13% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWMI and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to IWMI's 4, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWMI and VTI overlap?
IWMI and VTI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 3 holdings are unique to IWMI, and 3,499 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWMI or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 4 for IWMI.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.76% for IWMI.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWMI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 14.86% against 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWMI has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.4% annualized against 13% for VTI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -10.6% for IWMI and -9.2% for VTI.
Compare IWMI and VTI 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.