IWN vs QUAL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWN and QUAL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWN is iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF, while QUAL is iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF. IWN is broader by holdings count, with 1,388 positions versus 121 for QUAL. QUAL is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QUAL ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 60.
What is the main difference between IWN and QUAL?
IWN holds 1,388 positions to QUAL's 121, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWN | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 121 |
| Top-10 concentration | 5.5% | 44.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.54% | 0.86% |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 4,268,662 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.1% | +12.3% |
| YTD return | +16.3% | +10.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.6% | +9.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 12.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.7% | -28.2% |
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 1.11 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 53/100 | 37/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
QUAL leads
QUAL leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support QUAL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QUAL over IWN, 61 versus 60 as of Nov 7, 2026. QUAL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while IWN holds the stronger momentum profile. QUAL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QUAL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. QUAL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF and iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWN vs QUAL: 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 | QUAL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.24% | 0.15% | QUAL |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,388 | 121 | IWN |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 5.5% | 44.5% | IWN |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.54% | 0.86% | IWN |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.7% | -28.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.9% | 12.6% | QUAL |
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 QUAL 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 37IWN +16
- Value62 vs 72QUAL +10
- Quality57 vs 63QUAL +6
- Risk Resilience75 vs 78Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor QUAL. QUAL’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; IWN keeps a meaningful momentum 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: 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 +38
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: QUAL moved ahead of IWN in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWN and QUAL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QUAL (iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
IWN (iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF): the counter-case, on momentum.
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 | QUAL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 121 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 4,268,662 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 12.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.76 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.87 | 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 QUAL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
1,385 holdings are unique to IWN, and 118 holdings are unique to QUAL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QUAL is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 44.53% of the fund, against 5.48% for IWN (121 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 IWN adds that QUAL doesn’t
| Holding | IWN | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 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 QUAL adds that IWN doesn’t
| Holding | QUAL | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 7.62% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.83% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA | 6.56% | Not held |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 4.36% | Not held |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 3.79% | Not held |
| LLYELI LILLY | 3.61% | 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 QUAL: five-year payout growth
IWN grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.78% a year against QUAL's 2.85%. IWN: The 2020 payout was 14.5% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | IWN | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.78% | 2.85% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.112 | $1.615 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.072 | $1.859 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #73 of 138 | #117 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 QUAL. 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 | 60 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QUAL | Value 62 vs 72 |
| Technicals | QUAL | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs 3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 78 |
| 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 QUAL 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 QUAL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6QUAL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QUAL +1
- 60 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- IWN +12
- 62 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- QUAL +2
- 58 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- IWN +5
- 61 vs 56
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Nov 6 when QUAL 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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only IWN
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QUAL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.16%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
QUAL 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 -0.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, AIQ +11 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.
- 1IWN closes the Value gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to QUAL's edge.
- 2IWN's EMA Ribbon Compression turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3QUAL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
Split across windows| Metric | IWN | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.4% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | 16.3% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.1% | 12.3% |
Technicals
QUAL has the stronger structure| Metric | IWN | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.5 | 37.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 16.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | 3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.8% | 16.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IWN | QUAL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -8.7% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -7.4% | -3.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 12.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWN and QUAL?
IWN holds 1,388 positions to QUAL's 121, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWN and QUAL overlap?
IWN and QUAL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 1,385 holdings are unique to IWN, and 118 holdings are unique to QUAL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWN or QUAL?
IWN holds more positions: 1,388 versus 121 for QUAL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QUAL has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.24% for IWN.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWN, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.54% against 0.86% for QUAL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWN has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.9% annualized against 12.6% for QUAL.
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 -28.2% for QUAL.
Compare IWN and QUAL 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.