The iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and the Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) are both among the Top 100 ETFs. IWF is a iShares Large Growth fund and DFAC is a Dimensional Fund Advisors Large Blend fund. So, what’s the difference between IWF and DFAC? And which fund is better?
IWF and DFAC have the same expense ratio: 0.19%. IWF also has a higher exposure to the technology sector and a lower standard deviation. Overall, IWF has provided higher returns than DFAC over the past ten years.
In this article, we’ll compare IWF vs. DFAC. We’ll look at portfolio growth and risk metrics, as well as at their fund composition and performance. Moreover, I’ll also discuss IWF’s and DFAC’s annual returns, holdings, and industry exposure and examine how these affect their overall returns.
FYI: Another great way to get exposure to the real estate sector is by investing in real estate debt. Groundfloor offers fantastic short-term, high-yield bonds that can add diversification to your portfolio!
Summary
| IWF | DFAC | |
| Name | iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF |
| Category | Large Growth | Large Blend |
| Issuer | iShares | Dimensional Fund Advisors |
| AUM | 72.16B | 13.53B |
| Avg. Return | 17.72% | 13.93% |
| Div. Yield | 0.52% | 1.0% |
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.19% |
The iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is a Large Growth fund that is issued by iShares. It currently has 72.16B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 17.72% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 0.52% with an expense ratio of 0.19%.
The Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) is a Large Blend fund that is issued by Dimensional Fund Advisors. It currently has 13.53B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 13.93% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 1.0% with an expense ratio of 0.19%.
IWF’s dividend yield is 0.48% lower than that of DFAC (0.52% vs. 1.0%). Also, IWF yielded on average 3.79% more per year over the past decade (17.72% vs. 13.93%). IWF and DFAC have the same expense ratio: 0.19%.
FYI: The best way I've found to invest is through M1 Finance. It's free and you even get an instant line of credit and 100$! Have a look here (link to M1 Finance).
Fund Composition
Industry Exposure
| IWF | DFAC | |
| Technology | 39.29% | 22.81% |
| Industrials | 6.19% | 14.13% |
| Energy | 0.28% | 2.67% |
| Communication Services | 12.82% | 7.63% |
| Utilities | 0.03% | 1.54% |
| Healthcare | 9.23% | 12.09% |
| Consumer Defensive | 4.31% | 5.94% |
| Real Estate | 1.85% | 0.37% |
| Financial Services | 7.36% | 16.17% |
| Consumer Cyclical | 17.62% | 13.09% |
| Basic Materials | 1.01% | 3.56% |
The iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has the most exposure to the Technology sector at 39.29%. This is followed by Consumer Cyclical and Communication Services at 17.62% and 12.82% respectively. Energy (0.28%), Basic Materials (1.01%), and Real Estate (1.85%) only make up 3.14% of the fund’s total assets.
IWF’s mid-section with moderate exposure is comprised of Consumer Defensive, Industrials, Financial Services, Healthcare, and Communication Services stocks at 4.31%, 6.19%, 7.36%, 9.23%, and 12.82%.
The Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) has the most exposure to the Technology sector at 22.81%. This is followed by Financial Services and Industrials at 16.17% and 14.13% respectively. Utilities (1.54%), Energy (2.67%), and Basic Materials (3.56%) only make up 7.77% of the fund’s total assets.
DFAC’s mid-section with moderate exposure is comprised of Consumer Defensive, Communication Services, Healthcare, Consumer Cyclical, and Industrials stocks at 5.94%, 7.63%, 12.09%, 13.09%, and 14.13%.
IWF is 16.48% more exposed to the Technology sector than DFAC (39.29% vs 22.81%). IWF’s exposure to Consumer Cyclical and Communication Services stocks is 4.53% higher and 5.19% higher respectively (17.62% vs. 13.09% and 12.82% vs. 7.63%). In total, Energy, Basic Materials, and Real Estate also make up 3.46% less of the fund’s holdings compared to DFAC (3.14% vs. 6.60%).
Holdings
| IWF Holdings | Weight |
| Apple Inc | 10.51% |
| Microsoft Corp | 9.85% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 6.63% |
| Facebook Inc Class A | 3.91% |
| Alphabet Inc Class A | 3.2% |
| Alphabet Inc Class C | 3.03% |
| Tesla Inc | 2.45% |
| NVIDIA Corp | 2.14% |
| Visa Inc Class A | 1.91% |
| The Home Depot Inc | 1.62% |
IWF’s Top Holdings are Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp, Amazon.com Inc, Facebook Inc Class A, and Alphabet Inc Class A at 10.51%, 9.85%, 6.63%, 3.91%, and 3.2%.
Alphabet Inc Class C (3.03%), Tesla Inc (2.45%), and NVIDIA Corp (2.14%) have a slightly smaller but still significant weight. Visa Inc Class A and The Home Depot Inc are also represented in the IWF’s holdings at 1.91% and 1.62%.
| DFAC Holdings | Weight |
| Apple Inc | 4.7% |
| Microsoft Corp | 3.81% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 2.39% |
| Johnson & Johnson | 1.05% |
| Facebook Inc Class A | 1.05% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.0% |
| Alphabet Inc Class C | 0.85% |
| Alphabet Inc Class A | 0.84% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc Class B | 0.75% |
| Visa Inc Class A | 0.74% |
DFAC’s Top Holdings are Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp, Amazon.com Inc, Johnson & Johnson, and Facebook Inc Class A at 4.7%, 3.81%, 2.39%, 1.05%, and 1.05%.
JPMorgan Chase & Co (1.0%), Alphabet Inc Class C (0.85%), and Alphabet Inc Class A (0.84%) have a slightly smaller but still significant weight. Berkshire Hathaway Inc Class B and Visa Inc Class A are also represented in the DFAC’s holdings at 0.75% and 0.74%.
Risk Analysis
| IWF | DFAC | |
| Mean Return | 1.48 | 1.19 |
| R-squared | 92.93 | 95.1 |
| Std. Deviation | 14.42 | 15.55 |
| Alpha | 2.16 | -2.75 |
| Beta | 1.03 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.19 | 0.88 |
| Treynor Ratio | 17.1 | 11.85 |
The iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a Sharpe Ratio of 1.19 with a Treynor Ratio of 17.1 and a Beta of 1.03. Its Standard Deviation is 14.42 while IWF’s Alpha is 2.16. Furthermore, the fund has a Mean Return of 1.48 and a R-squared of 92.93.
The Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) has a R-squared of 95.1 with a Sharpe Ratio of 0.88 and a Standard Deviation of 15.55. Its Alpha is -2.75 while DFAC’s Mean Return is 1.19. Furthermore, the fund has a Beta of 1.12 and a Treynor Ratio of 11.85.
IWF’s Mean Return is 0.29 points higher than that of DFAC and its R-squared is 2.17 points lower. With a Standard Deviation of 14.42, IWF is slightly less volatile than DFAC. The Alpha and Beta of IWF are 4.91 points higher and 0.09 points lower than DFAC’s Alpha and Beta.
NOTE: The easiest way to add diversification to your portfolio is to invest in real estate through Fundrise. You can become private real estate investor without the burden of property management! Check it out here (link to Fundrise).
Performance
Annual Returns
| Year | IWF | DFAC |
| 2020 | 38.21% | 15.8% |
| 2019 | 36.08% | 29.54% |
| 2018 | -1.68% | -9.43% |
| 2017 | 29.96% | 18.82% |
| 2016 | 6.92% | 16.31% |
| 2015 | 5.48% | -2.53% |
| 2014 | 12.84% | 9.56% |
| 2013 | 33.19% | 37.55% |
| 2012 | 15.03% | 17.93% |
| 2011 | 2.47% | -1.96% |
| 2010 | 16.47% | 21.67% |
IWF had its best year in 2020 with an annual return of 38.21%. IWF’s worst year over the past decade yielded -1.68% and occurred in 2018. In most years the iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF provided moderate returns such as in 2014, 2012, and 2010 where annual returns amounted to 12.84%, 15.03%, and 16.47% respectively.
The year 2013 was the strongest year for DFAC, returning 37.55% on an annual basis. The poorest year for DFAC in the last ten years was 2018, with a yield of -9.43%. Most years the Dimensional U.S. Core Equity 2 ETF has given investors modest returns, such as in 2020, 2016, and 2012, when gains were 15.8%, 16.31%, and 17.93% respectively.
Portfolio Growth
| Fund | Initial Balance | Final Balance | CAGR |
| IWF | $10,000 | $55,920 | 17.72% |
| DFAC | $10,000 | $38,796 | 13.93% |
A $10,000 investment in IWF would have resulted in a final balance of $55,920. This is a profit of $45,920 over 11 years and amounts to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.72%.
With a $10,000 investment in DFAC, the end total would have been $38,796. This equates to a $28,796 profit over 11 years and a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.93%.
IWF’s CAGR is 3.79 percentage points higher than that of DFAC and as a result, would have yielded $17,124 more on a $10,000 investment. Thus, IWF outperformed DFAC by 3.79% annually.
Current recommendations:
Over the past years, I have discovered several tools and products that have helped me tremendously on my path to financial freedom:
P.S.: The links below are affiliate links, which means I receive a small commission at no extra cost to you when you sign up for one of the services. Thank you for your support!
1)Personal Capital is simply the best tool out there to track your net worth and plan for financial freedom. Just their retirement planner alone has become an invaluable tool to keep myself on track financially. Try it out, it's free!
2) Take a look at M1 Finance, my favorite broker. I love how easy it is to invest and maintain my portfolio with them. I can set up automatic transfers, rebalance my portfolio with one click and even borrow up to 35% of my assets at super low interest rates!
3) Fundrise is by far the best way I've found to invest in Real Estate. You can diversify your portfolio by investing in their eREITs or even allocate capital to individual properties (without the hassle of managing tenants!).
4) Groundfloor is another great way to get exposure to the real estate sector by investing in short-term, high-yield real estate debt. Current returns are >10% and you can get started with just $10.
5) If you are interested in startup investing, check out Mainvest. I've started allocating a small amount of assets to invest in and support small businesses. Return targets are between 10-25% and you can start with just $100!
To see all of my most up-to-date recommendations, check out the Recommended Tools section.
I believe that money is just a means to an end: to be free to spend your time as you wish, to maximize your positive impact on the world.
