VOO vs IWF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VOO and IWF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, while IWF is iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 369 for IWF. IWF is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VOO ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 45.
| Metric | VOO | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 508 | 369 |
| Top-10 concentration | 37.6% | 57.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.1% | 0.39% |
| Average volume | 6,909,667 | 4,481,172 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +8.5% | -6.9% |
| YTD return | +7.8% | -5.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11% | +8.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.6% | 19.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -14.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.5% | -32.7% |
| Beta | 1.00 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | -0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.63 | -0.54 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 45/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 25/100 | 23/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 62/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
VOO leads
VOO leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Competitive: 4 of 4 evidence groups support VOO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VOO over IWF, 54 versus 45 as of Nov 7, 2026. VOO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. VOO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VOO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VOO vs IWF: 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 | VOO | IWF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.18% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 508 | 369 | VOO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 37.6% | 57.1% | VOO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.1% | 0.39% | VOO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.5% | -32.7% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.6% | 19.3% | 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 VOO and IWF 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.
- Risk Resilience77 vs 62VOO +15
- Value43 vs 30VOO +13
- Quality77 vs 70VOO +7
- Momentum25 vs 23Even
4 of 4 evidence groups favor VOO. VOO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
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.
Largest factor move: Value +2, 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.
VOO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VOO and IWF 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 | VOO | IWF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 508 | 369 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,909,667 | 4,481,172 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.6% | 19.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -14.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | -0.39 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.00 | 1.33 | 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
VOO and IWF share 56.35% of their weighted exposure across 176 common holdings.
329 holdings are unique to VOO, and 190 holdings are unique to IWF. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
IWF is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 57.13% of the fund, against 37.65% for VOO (369 holdings vs 508). 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 | VOO | IWF | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 7.55% | 15.69% | 7.55% |
| AAPLAPPLE | 7.05% | 7.43% | 7.05% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 5.36% | 5.49% | 5.36% |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 3.24% | 5.79% | 3.24% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.86% | 5.1% | 2.86% |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 2.62% | 4.69% | 2.62% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS CLASS A | 1.9% | 3.53% | 1.9% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 1.44% | 3.48% | 1.44% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VOO adds that IWF doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.13% | 0.61% |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.46% | Not held |
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 1.46% | Not held |
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 1% | Not held |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 0.96% | Not held |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 0.76% | 0.12% |
What IWF adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | IWF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 15.69% | 7.55% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 3.48% | 1.44% |
| TSLATESLA INC | 3.23% | 1.36% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 2.55% | 1.21% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 1.19% | 0.57% |
| PLTRPALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES CLASS A | 1.13% | 0.44% |
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.
VOO vs IWF: five-year payout growth
VOO grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.91% a year against IWF's 1.23%. VOO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; IWF did in 3 years.
| Dividend metric | VOO | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.91% | 1.23% |
| 2020 annual payout | $5.303 | $0.399 |
| 2025 annual payout | $7.068 | $0.424 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #88 of 138 | #124 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VOO | 54 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VOO | Value 43 vs 30 |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -4% vs -9.1%; vs 200-day 0.9% vs -6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 77 vs 62 |
| 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 VOO and IWF and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 VOO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6VOO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VOO +9
- 54 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +11
- 56 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +9
- 63 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +6
- 62 vs 56
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.37%)
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only IWF
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, BB Lower Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VOO 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.26%, 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.
- 1IWF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to VOO's edge.
- 2IWF's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VOO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
VOO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | VOO | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.7% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.9% | -10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.3% | -9.5% |
| Year to date | 7.8% | -5.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.5% | -6.9% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | VOO | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.9 | 29.2 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 34.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | -9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.9% | -6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.8% | 25.3% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | VOO | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | -0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.63 | -0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -14.7% |
| Current drawdown | -5.6% | -13.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.6% | 19.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do VOO and IWF overlap?
VOO and IWF share 56.35% of their weighted exposure across 176 common holdings. 329 holdings are unique to VOO, and 190 holdings are unique to IWF. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, VOO or IWF?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 369 for IWF.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.18% for IWF.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VOO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.1% against 0.39% for IWF.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWF has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.3% 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 -32.7% for IWF.
Compare VOO and IWF 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.