IWN vs VXUS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWN and VXUS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWN is iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF, while VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,821 positions versus 1,388 for IWN. VXUS is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between IWN and VXUS?
VXUS holds 8,821 positions to IWN's 1,388, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWN | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.05% |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 8,821 |
| Top-10 concentration | 5.5% | 12.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.54% | 2.45% |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 5,257,744 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.1% | +9.2% |
| YTD return | +16.3% | +7.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.6% | +7.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 17.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.7% | -28.9% |
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 0.53 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 53/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
IWN and VXUS are effectively level
IWN and VXUS are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate IWN and VXUS as of Nov 7, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWN vs VXUS: 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 | VXUS | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.24% | 0.05% | VXUS |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,388 | 8,821 | VXUS |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 5.5% | 12.9% | IWN |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.54% | 2.45% | VXUS |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.7% | -28.9% | IWN |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.9% | 17.7% | 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 VXUS 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 32IWN +21
- Quality57 vs 76VXUS +19
- Value62 vs 60Even
- Risk Resilience75 vs 76Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWN and VXUS 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 | VXUS | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,388 | 8,821 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 635,121 | 5,257,744 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 17.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.37 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.09 | 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 VXUS share 0.07% of their weighted exposure across 12 common holdings.
1,373 holdings are unique to IWN, and 8,269 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VXUS is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 12.94% of the fund, against 5.48% for IWN (8,821 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 | VXUS | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| FRBAFirst Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC | 0.03% | 0.05% | 0.03% |
| MCYMERCURY GENERAL | 0.17% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| BIPCBROOKFIELD INFRASTRUCTURE CORP CLA | 0.31% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| SSRM.TOSSR MINING | 0.5% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| BBUC.TOBROOKFIELD BUSINESS CORP CLASS A | 0.07% | 0% | 0% |
| DMCDEL MONTE | 0.07% | 0% | 0% |
| SGPSPYGLASS PHARMA SHS | 0.01% | 0% | 0% |
| PLUSEPLUS | 0.15% | 0% | 0% |
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 VXUS doesn’t
| Holding | IWN | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 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 VXUS adds that IWN doesn’t
| Holding | VXUS | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| 2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 4.02% | Not held |
| 005930.KSSamsung Electronics Co Ltd | 1.8% | Not held |
| ASML.ASASML Holding NV | 1.42% | Not held |
| 000660.KSSK hynix Inc | 1.41% | Not held |
| 0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd | 0.85% | Not held |
| HSBA.LHSBC Holdings PLC | 0.82% | 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 VXUS: five-year payout growth
VXUS grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 13.28% 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. VXUS: The 2020 payout was 24.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VXUS: The payout jumped 53.0% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. VXUS: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.9x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | IWN | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.78% | 13.28% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.112 | $1.286 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.072 | $2.399 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #73 of 138 | #43 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 62 vs 60 |
| Technicals | IWN | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 vs 76 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6VXUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 60 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWN +2
- 62 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- VXUS +3
- 58 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- VXUS +7
- 61 vs 68
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 30 when IWN moved ahead of VXUS.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VXUS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.35%)
- 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.
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 +0.15%, AIQ 0 points).
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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IWN | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -4.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | -4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.4% | -2.4% |
| Year to date | 16.3% | 7.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.1% | 9.2% |
Technicals
IWN has the stronger structure| Metric | IWN | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.5 | 38.3 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.8% | 18% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IWN | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.86 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.63 | 0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -8.7% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -7.4% | -8.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 17.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWN and VXUS?
VXUS holds 8,821 positions to IWN's 1,388, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWN and VXUS overlap?
IWN and VXUS share 0.07% of their weighted exposure across 12 common holdings. 1,373 holdings are unique to IWN, and 8,269 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWN or VXUS?
VXUS holds more positions: 8,821 versus 1,388 for IWN.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VXUS has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% a year against 0.24% for IWN.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VXUS, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.45% against 1.54% for IWN.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VXUS has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.7% annualized against 15.9% for IWN.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
IWN fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.7% against -28.9% for VXUS.
Compare IWN and VXUS 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.