IWN vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWN and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWN is iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. IWN is broader by holdings count, with 1,388 positions versus 508 for VOO. VOO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWN ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 54.
What is the main difference between IWN and VOO?
IWN and VOO have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWN | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 5.5% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.54% | 1.1% |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 6,909,667 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.1% | +8.5% |
| YTD return | +16.3% | +7.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.6% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 13.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.7% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 0.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 53/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
IWN leads
IWN leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VOO.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support IWN, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWN over VOO, 60 versus 54 as of Nov 7, 2026. IWN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while VOO holds the stronger quality profile. IWN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. IWN lead: Reversed — VOO led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IWN now leads by 6.
Compare iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWN vs VOO: 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 | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.24% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,388 | 508 | IWN |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 5.5% | 37.6% | IWN |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.54% | 1.1% | IWN |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.7% | -24.5% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.9% | 13.6% | VOO |
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 VOO 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 25IWN +28
- Quality57 vs 77VOO +20
- Value62 vs 43IWN +19
- Risk Resilience75 vs 77Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor IWN. IWN’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; VOO keeps a meaningful quality 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 -3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
IWN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWN and VOO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWN (iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 6,909,667 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 13.6% | 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 | 0.46 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.00 | 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 VOO share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
1,385 holdings are unique to IWN, and 505 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VOO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 37.65% of the fund, against 5.48% for IWN (508 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 VOO doesn’t
| Holding | IWN | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VOO adds that IWN doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 7.55% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.05% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.36% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.13% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.24% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.86% | 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 VOO: five-year payout growth
IWN grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.78% a year against VOO's 5.91%. VOO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IWN did in 1 year. IWN: The 2020 payout was 14.5% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | IWN | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.78% | 5.91% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.112 | $5.303 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.072 | $7.068 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #73 of 138 | #88 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 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 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWN | Value 62 vs 43 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -4%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 77 |
| 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 VOO 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 6 points.
- Only 2 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 — VOO led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IWN now leads by 6.
- Today
- IWN +6
- 60 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- IWN +6
- 62 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +5
- 58 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +1
- 61 vs 62
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when IWN moved ahead of VOO.
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
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.37%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
VOO 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.3%, 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.
- 1VOO closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWN's edge.
- 2VOO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility 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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IWN | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.4% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 16.3% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.1% | 8.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IWN | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.5 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.8% | 19.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IWN | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -8.7% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -7.4% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 13.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWN and VOO?
IWN and VOO have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWN and VOO overlap?
IWN and VOO share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 1,385 holdings are unique to IWN, and 505 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWN or VOO?
IWN holds more positions: 1,388 versus 508 for VOO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% 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 1.1% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWN has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.9% annualized against 13.6% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VOO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -26.7% for IWN.
Compare IWN and VOO 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.