IWR vs SPY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWR and SPY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWR is iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF, while SPY is State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF. IWR is broader by holdings count, with 821 positions versus 505 for SPY. SPY is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPY ahead on AIQ Score, 66 versus 61.
What is the main difference between IWR and SPY?
IWR and SPY have little in common: 13% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWR | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | 821 | 505 |
| Top-10 concentration | 6.4% | 38.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.16% | 0.99% |
| Average volume | 1,670,847 | 46,698,705 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.3% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | +13.8% | +12.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.1% | +12.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.4% | -9.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.2% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 1.39 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 66/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 63/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 88/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
SPY leads
SPY leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SPY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over IWR, 66 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while IWR holds the stronger value profile. SPY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWR vs SPY: 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 | IWR | SPY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.09% | SPY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 821 | 505 | IWR |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 6.4% | 38.2% | IWR |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.16% | 0.99% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.2% | -24.5% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.5% | 12.8% | Similar |
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 IWR and SPY 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.
- Quality64 vs 84SPY +20
- Value47 vs 41IWR +6
- Risk Resilience84 vs 88SPY +4
- Momentum60 vs 63Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; IWR keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +16
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
SPY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWR and SPY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
IWR (iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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 | IWR | SPY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 821 | 505 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,670,847 | 46,698,705 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.4% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.87 | 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
IWR and SPY share 13.03% of their weighted exposure across 305 common holdings.
511 holdings are unique to IWR, and 199 holdings are unique to SPY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SPY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 38.17% of the fund, against 6.41% for IWR (505 holdings vs 821). 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 | IWR | SPY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPCMARATHON PETROLEUM | 0.86% | 0.17% | 0.17% |
| PSXPHILLIPS 66 | 0.76% | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| HOODROBINHOOD MARKETS CLASS A | 0.65% | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| HPEHEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE | 0.57% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| WBDWARNER BROS. DISCOVERY SERIES A | 0.49% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS | 0.51% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| DDOGDATADOG INC CLASS A | 0.54% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| SPGSIMON PROPERTY GROUP REIT INC | 0.48% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IWR adds that SPY doesn’t
| Holding | IWR | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| MPCMARATHON PETROLEUM | 0.86% | 0.17% |
| SNOWSNOWFLAKE | 0.81% | Not held |
| PSXPHILLIPS 66 | 0.76% | 0.16% |
| NETCLOUDFLARE CLASS A | 0.72% | Not held |
| HOODROBINHOOD MARKETS CLASS A | 0.65% | 0.14% |
| HPEHEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE | 0.57% | 0.11% |
What SPY adds that IWR doesn’t
| Holding | SPY | IWR |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 8.08% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 7.33% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 5.59% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.77% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 2.98% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.61% | 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.
IWR vs SPY: five-year payout growth
IWR grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.23% a year against SPY's 5.05%. SPY never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IWR did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | IWR | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.23% | 5.05% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.875 | $5.691 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.241 | $7.281 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #76 of 138 | #95 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPY | 61 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWR | Value 47 vs 41 |
| Technicals | SPY | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 84 vs 88 |
| 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 IWR and SPY 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 SPY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPY +5
- 61 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- SPY +6
- 60 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +11
- 55 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- SPY +5
- 65 vs 70
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 1 when SPY moved ahead of IWR.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only IWR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPY
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- 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, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
SPY 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.52%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.53%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1IWR closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
- 2IWR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate SPY's advantage entirely.
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 | IWR | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.4% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 13.8% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.3% | 16.4% |
Technicals
SPY has the stronger structure| Metric | IWR | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.9 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.2% | 9% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | IWR | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 1.39 |
| Max drawdown | -8.4% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -4.5% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWR and SPY?
IWR and SPY have little in common: 13% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWR and SPY overlap?
IWR and SPY share 13.03% of their weighted exposure across 305 common holdings. 511 holdings are unique to IWR, and 199 holdings are unique to SPY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWR or SPY?
IWR holds more positions: 821 versus 505 for SPY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPY has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% a year against 0.18% for IWR.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.16% for IWR and 0.99% for SPY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13.5% annualized for IWR and 12.8% for SPY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -26.2% for IWR and -24.5% for SPY.
Compare IWR and SPY 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.