IWR vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWR and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWR is iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 821 for IWR. VTI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has IWR ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 60.
What is the main difference between IWR and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to IWR's 821, and 19% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | IWR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 821 | 3,524 |
| Top-10 concentration | 6.4% | 33.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.16% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 1,670,847 | 3,115,564 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.3% | +15.8% |
| YTD return | +13.8% | +12.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.1% | +11.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.4% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.2% | -25.4% |
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 51/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
IWR leads
IWR leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VTI.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support IWR, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWR over VTI, 61 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. IWR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while VTI holds the stronger quality profile. IWR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. IWR lead: Reversed — VTI led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IWR now leads by 1.
Compare iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWR vs VTI: 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 | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 821 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 6.4% | 33.2% | IWR |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.16% | 1.05% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.2% | -25.4% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.5% | 13% | 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 VTI 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 74VTI +10
- Momentum60 vs 51IWR +9
- Value47 vs 42IWR +5
- Risk Resilience84 vs 86Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor IWR. IWR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; VTI keeps a meaningful quality 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
IWR's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWR and VTI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWR (iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
VTI (Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market 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 | IWR | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 821 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,670,847 | 3,115,564 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.4% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.86 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.02 | 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 VTI share 18.55% of their weighted exposure across 784 common holdings.
32 holdings are unique to IWR, and 2,714 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VTI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 33.24% of the fund, against 6.41% for IWR (3,524 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 | VTI | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| SNOWSNOWFLAKE | 0.81% | 0.13% | 0.13% |
| MPCMARATHON PETROLEUM | 0.86% | 0.13% | 0.13% |
| NETCLOUDFLARE CLASS A | 0.72% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| PSXPHILLIPS 66 | 0.76% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| DDOGDATADOG INC CLASS A | 0.54% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| RCLROYAL CARIBBEAN GROUP | 0.48% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| SPGSIMON PROPERTY GROUP REIT INC | 0.48% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| HOODROBINHOOD MARKETS CLASS A | 0.65% | 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 VTI doesn’t
| Holding | IWR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| MPCMARATHON PETROLEUM | 0.86% | 0.13% |
| SNOWSNOWFLAKE | 0.81% | 0.13% |
| PSXPHILLIPS 66 | 0.76% | 0.12% |
| NETCLOUDFLARE CLASS A | 0.72% | 0.12% |
| HOODROBINHOOD MARKETS CLASS A | 0.65% | 0.1% |
| HPEHEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE | 0.57% | 0.09% |
What VTI adds that IWR doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | IWR |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.79% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 3.65% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | 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 VTI: five-year payout growth
IWR grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.23% a year against VTI's 6.28%. VTI never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IWR did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | IWR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.23% | 6.28% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.875 | $2.770 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.241 | $3.757 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #76 of 138 | #81 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 IWR. 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 | 61 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWR | Value 47 vs 42 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 84 vs 86 |
| 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 VTI 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 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 IWR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20IWR lead: Reversed — VTI led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IWR now leads by 1.
- Today
- IWR +1
- 61 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWR +1
- 60 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +5
- 55 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- VTI +1
- 65 vs 66
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when VTI 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
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
VTI 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.
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 +0.55%, 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.
- 1VTI closes the Momentum gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWR's edge.
- 2VTI's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3IWR'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
Split across windows| Metric | IWR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.4% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | 13.8% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.3% | 15.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IWR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.9 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.2% | 9.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IWR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.38 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -8.4% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.5% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.5% | 13% |
| 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 VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to IWR's 821, and 19% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do IWR and VTI overlap?
IWR and VTI share 18.55% of their weighted exposure across 784 common holdings. 32 holdings are unique to IWR, and 2,714 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWR or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 821 for IWR.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% 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 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13.5% annualized for IWR and 13% for VTI.
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 -25.4% for VTI.
Compare IWR and VTI 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.