IWN vs QVAL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWN and QVAL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWN is iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF, while QVAL is Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF. IWN is broader by holdings count, with 1,388 positions versus 52 for QVAL. QVAL is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWN ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 57.
What is the main difference between IWN and QVAL?
IWN holds 1,388 positions to QVAL's 52, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWN | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.28% |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 52 |
| Top-10 concentration | 5.5% | 23.7% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.54% | 1.4% |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 49,819 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.1% | +35% |
| YTD return | +16.3% | +28.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.6% | +12.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 14.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -6.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.7% | -27.1% |
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 3.81 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 53/100 | 63/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 68/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF vs Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF
IWN leads
IWN leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from QVAL.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support IWN, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWN over QVAL, 60 versus 57 as of Nov 7, 2026. IWN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while QVAL holds the stronger momentum profile. IWN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. IWN lead: Reversed — QVAL led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IWN now leads by 3.
Compare iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF and Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWN vs QVAL: 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 | QVAL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.24% | 0.28% | IWN |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,388 | 52 | IWN |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 5.5% | 23.7% | IWN |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.54% | 1.4% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.7% | -27.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.9% | 14.5% | QVAL |
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 QVAL 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.
- Quality57 vs 40IWN +17
- Momentum53 vs 63QVAL +10
- Risk Resilience75 vs 68IWN +7
- Value62 vs 62Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor IWN. IWN’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; QVAL 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: Momentum -4
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
IWN's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWN and QVAL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWN (iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
QVAL (Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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 | QVAL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.28% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 52 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 49,819 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 14.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -6.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 1.93 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.54 | 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 QVAL share 0.18% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
1,384 holdings are unique to IWN, and 50 holdings are unique to QVAL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QVAL is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 23.66% of the fund, against 5.48% for IWN (52 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 | QVAL | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| URBNUrban Outfitters Inc | 0.18% | 1.86% | 0.18% |
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 QVAL doesn’t
| Holding | IWN | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| 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 QVAL adds that IWN doesn’t
| Holding | QVAL | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| AUAnglogold Ashanti Plc | 2.94% | Not held |
| HLHecla Mining Co | 2.76% | Not held |
| NEMNewmont Corp | 2.74% | Not held |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc | 2.27% | Not held |
| APAAPA Corp | 2.26% | Not held |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 2.2% | 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 QVAL: five-year payout growth
IWN grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.78% a year against QVAL's 6.14%. IWN: The 2020 payout was 14.5% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. QVAL: The 2020 payout was 13.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | IWN | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.78% | 6.14% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.112 | $0.522 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.072 | $0.703 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #73 of 138 | #85 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
1 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 | Even | 60 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 62 vs 62 |
| Technicals | QVAL | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs 10.7% |
| Risk Resilience | IWN | Risk Resilience 75 vs 68 |
| 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 QVAL 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 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Reversed — QVAL led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IWN now leads by 3.
- Today
- IWN +3
- 60 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- IWN +1
- 62 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- QVAL +3
- 58 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- IWN +2
- 61 vs 59
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when QVAL 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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QVAL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.32%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
QVAL 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 down over the latest session (price -1.07%, 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.
- 1QVAL closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWN's edge.
- 2QVAL's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
QVAL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IWN | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | 3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | 3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.4% | 15.2% |
| Year to date | 16.3% | 28.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.1% | 35% |
Technicals
QVAL has the stronger structure| Metric | IWN | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.5 | 52.4 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 40.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | 10.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.8% | 18.7% |
Risk
IWN is the more resilient| Metric | IWN | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 0.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 3.81 |
| Max drawdown | -8.7% | -6.7% |
| Current drawdown | -7.4% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 14.5% |
| 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 QVAL?
IWN holds 1,388 positions to QVAL's 52, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWN and QVAL overlap?
IWN and QVAL share 0.18% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 1,384 holdings are unique to IWN, and 50 holdings are unique to QVAL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWN or QVAL?
IWN holds more positions: 1,388 versus 52 for QVAL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
IWN has the lower expense ratio, 0.24% a year against 0.28% for QVAL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.54% for IWN and 1.4% for QVAL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWN has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.9% annualized against 14.5% for QVAL.
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 -27.1% for QVAL.
Compare IWN and QVAL 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.