IWN vs QMOM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWN and QMOM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWN is iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF, while QMOM is Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF. IWN is broader by holdings count, with 1,388 positions versus 51 for QMOM. QMOM is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWN ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 37.
What is the main difference between IWN and QMOM?
IWN holds 1,388 positions to QMOM's 51, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWN | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.28% |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 51 |
| Top-10 concentration | 5.5% | 22.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.54% | 0.54% |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 20,987 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.1% | -0.9% |
| YTD return | +16.3% | +0.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.6% | +4.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 26.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -19.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.7% | -26.8% |
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 0.01 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 37/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 53/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 57/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF vs Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF
IWN leads
IWN leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support IWN, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWN over QMOM, 60 versus 37 as of Nov 7, 2026. IWN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. IWN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWN today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. IWN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 23 points over 30 sessions. IWN leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF and Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWN vs QMOM: 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 | IWN | QMOM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.24% | 0.28% | IWN |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,388 | 51 | IWN |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 5.5% | 22.6% | IWN |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.54% | 0.54% | IWN |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.7% | -26.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.9% | 26.9% | IWN |
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 IWN and QMOM 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.
- Momentum53 vs 24IWN +29
- Quality57 vs 34IWN +23
- Value62 vs 41IWN +21
- Risk Resilience75 vs 57IWN +18
4 of 4 evidence groups favor IWN. IWN’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Value +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
IWN's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWN and QMOM 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 | IWN | QMOM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.28% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 51 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 20,987 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 26.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -19.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.01 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.51 | 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
IWN and QMOM share 0.49% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
1,384 holdings are unique to IWN, and 49 holdings are unique to QMOM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QMOM is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 22.57% of the fund, against 5.48% for IWN (51 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.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | IWN | QMOM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| PBFPBF Energy Inc | 0.49% | 2.08% | 0.49% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IWN adds that QMOM doesn’t
| Holding | IWN | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What QMOM adds that IWN doesn’t
| Holding | QMOM | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| DELLDell Technologies Inc | 2.62% | Not held |
| HPEHewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 2.45% | Not held |
| ROIVRoivant Sciences Ltd | 2.36% | Not held |
| ARWArrow Electronics Inc | 2.23% | Not held |
| VIAVViavi Solutions Inc | 2.22% | Not held |
| VLOValero Energy Corp | 2.15% | 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.
IWN vs QMOM: five-year payout growth
QMOM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 51.47% a year against IWN's 7.78%. IWN: The 2020 payout was 14.5% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. QMOM: The payout jumped 1064.5% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. QMOM: A single payment in an endpoint year was 13.5x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | IWN | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.78% | 51.47% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.112 | $0.044 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.072 | $0.354 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #73 of 138 | #11 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 IWN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWN | 60 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWN | Value 62 vs 41 |
| Technicals | IWN | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -9%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs -10.3% |
| Risk Resilience | IWN | Risk Resilience 75 vs 57 |
| 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 IWN and QMOM 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 23 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 IWN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6IWN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWN +23
- 60 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- IWN +23
- 62 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- IWN +16
- 58 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- IWN +22
- 61 vs 39
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only IWN
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.31%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only QMOM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.05%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
QMOM is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.69%, 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.
- 1QMOM closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWN's edge.
- 2QMOM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IWN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
IWN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IWN | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -7.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | -11% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.4% | -13.9% |
| Year to date | 16.3% | 0.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.1% | -0.9% |
Technicals
IWN has the stronger structure| Metric | IWN | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.5 | 29.4 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 29.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | -10.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.8% | 27.7% |
Risk
IWN is the more resilient| Metric | IWN | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 0.01 |
| Max drawdown | -8.7% | -19.9% |
| Current drawdown | -7.4% | -19.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 26.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWN and QMOM?
IWN holds 1,388 positions to QMOM's 51, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWN and QMOM overlap?
IWN and QMOM share 0.49% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 1,384 holdings are unique to IWN, and 49 holdings are unique to QMOM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWN or QMOM?
IWN holds more positions: 1,388 versus 51 for QMOM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IWN has the lower expense ratio, 0.24% a year against 0.28% for QMOM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWN, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.54% against 0.54% for QMOM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QMOM has been more volatile over the past year, at 26.9% annualized against 15.9% for IWN.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -26.7% for IWN and -26.8% for QMOM.
Compare IWN and QMOM 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.