Skip to content

IWF vs. IWM: What’s The Difference?

The iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) are both among the Top 100 ETFs. IWF is a iShares Large Growth fund and IWM is a iShares Small Blend fund. So, what’s the difference between IWF and IWM? And which fund is better?

IWF and IWM 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 IWM over the past ten years.

In this article, we’ll compare IWF vs. IWM. We’ll look at performance and holdings, as well as at their industry exposure and fund composition. Moreover, I’ll also discuss IWF’s and IWM’s annual returns, portfolio growth, and risk metrics and examine how these affect their overall returns.

TIP: Keep track of all your investments with Personal Capital. I use this amazing tool to aggregate all investments in one place and make sure I'm on track to financial freedom. Oh, and did I mention it's free? Try it out here (link to Personal Capital).

Summary

IWFIWM
NameiShares Russell 1000 Growth ETFiShares Russell 2000 ETF
CategoryLarge GrowthSmall Blend
IssueriSharesiShares
AUM72.16B66.48B
Avg. Return17.72%13.52%
Div. Yield0.52%0.86%
Expense Ratio0.19%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 iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is a Small Blend fund that is issued by iShares. It currently has 66.48B total assets under management and has yielded an average annual return of 13.52% over the past 10 years. The fund has a dividend yield of 0.86% with an expense ratio of 0.19%.

IWF’s dividend yield is 0.34% lower than that of IWM (0.52% vs. 0.86%). Also, IWF yielded on average 4.20% more per year over the past decade (17.72% vs. 13.52%). IWF and IWM have the same expense ratio: 0.19%.

FYI: The best way I've found to invest in ETFs is through M1 Finance. It's free and you even get an instant line of credit! Have a look here (link to M1 Finance).

Fund Composition

Industry Exposure

IWF vs. IWM - Industry Exposure

IWFIWM
Technology39.29%14.21%
Industrials6.19%14.78%
Energy0.28%3.74%
Communication Services12.82%3.79%
Utilities0.03%2.44%
Healthcare9.23%20.3%
Consumer Defensive4.31%3.65%
Real Estate1.85%8.59%
Financial Services7.36%13.76%
Consumer Cyclical17.62%10.99%
Basic Materials1.01%3.74%

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 iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has the most exposure to the Healthcare sector at 20.3%. This is followed by Industrials and Technology at 14.78% and 14.21% respectively. Consumer Defensive (3.65%), Basic Materials (3.74%), and Energy (3.74%) only make up 11.13% of the fund’s total assets.

IWM’s mid-section with moderate exposure is comprised of Communication Services, Real Estate, Consumer Cyclical, Financial Services, and Technology stocks at 3.79%, 8.59%, 10.99%, 13.76%, and 14.21%.

IWF is 25.08% more exposed to the Technology sector than IWM (39.29% vs 14.21%). IWF’s exposure to Consumer Cyclical and Communication Services stocks is 6.63% higher and 9.03% higher respectively (17.62% vs. 10.99% and 12.82% vs. 3.79%). In total, Energy, Basic Materials, and Real Estate also make up 12.93% less of the fund’s holdings compared to IWM (3.14% vs. 16.07%).

Holdings

IWF - Holdings

IWF HoldingsWeight
Apple Inc10.51%
Microsoft Corp9.85%
Amazon.com Inc6.63%
Facebook Inc Class A3.91%
Alphabet Inc Class A3.2%
Alphabet Inc Class C3.03%
Tesla Inc2.45%
NVIDIA Corp2.14%
Visa Inc Class A1.91%
The Home Depot Inc1.62%

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%.

IWM - Holdings

IWM HoldingsWeight
AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc Class A0.52%
Intellia Therapeutics Inc0.33%
Crocs Inc0.3%
BlackRock Cash Funds Treasury SL Agency0.29%
Tenet Healthcare Corp0.26%
Lattice Semiconductor Corp0.26%
Tetra Tech Inc0.25%
II-VI Inc0.25%
EastGroup Properties Inc0.24%
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals Inc0.24%

IWM’s Top Holdings are AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc Class A, Intellia Therapeutics Inc, Crocs Inc, BlackRock Cash Funds Treasury SL Agency, and Tenet Healthcare Corp at 0.52%, 0.33%, 0.3%, 0.29%, and 0.26%.

Lattice Semiconductor Corp (0.26%), Tetra Tech Inc (0.25%), and II-VI Inc (0.25%) have a slightly smaller but still significant weight. EastGroup Properties Inc and Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals Inc are also represented in the IWM’s holdings at 0.24% and 0.24%.

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).

Risk Analysis

IWFIWM
Mean Return1.481.12
R-squared92.9377.73
Std. Deviation14.4218.87
Alpha2.16-5.12
Beta1.031.23
Sharpe Ratio1.190.68
Treynor Ratio17.19.56

The iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a Alpha of 2.16 with a Sharpe Ratio of 1.19 and a Treynor Ratio of 17.1. Its Mean Return is 1.48 while IWF’s Beta is 1.03. Furthermore, the fund has a R-squared of 92.93 and a Standard Deviation of 14.42.

The iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) has a Alpha of -5.12 with a R-squared of 77.73 and a Beta of 1.23. Its Standard Deviation is 18.87 while IWM’s Mean Return is 1.12. Furthermore, the fund has a Sharpe Ratio of 0.68 and a Treynor Ratio of 9.56.

IWF’s Mean Return is 0.36 points higher than that of IWM and its R-squared is 15.20 points higher. With a Standard Deviation of 14.42, IWF is slightly less volatile than IWM. The Alpha and Beta of IWF are 7.28 points higher and 0.20 points lower than IWM’s Alpha and Beta.

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!

Performance

Annual Returns

IWF vs. IWM - Annual Returns

YearIWFIWM
202038.21%19.89%
201936.08%25.42%
2018-1.68%-11.02%
201729.96%14.66%
20166.92%21.36%
20155.48%-4.33%
201412.84%4.94%
201333.19%38.85%
201215.03%16.39%
20112.47%-4.19%
201016.47%26.76%

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 IWM, returning 38.85% on an annual basis. The poorest year for IWM in the last ten years was 2018, with a yield of -11.02%. Most years the iShares Russell 2000 ETF has given investors modest returns, such as in 2017, 2012, and 2020, when gains were 14.66%, 16.39%, and 19.89% respectively.

Portfolio Growth

IWF vs. IWM - Portfolio Growth

FundInitial BalanceFinal BalanceCAGR
IWF$10,000$55,92017.72%
IWM$10,000$36,68613.52%

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 IWM, the end total would have been $36,686. This equates to a $26,686 profit over 11 years and a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.52%.

IWF’s CAGR is 4.20 percentage points higher than that of IWM and as a result, would have yielded $19,234 more on a $10,000 investment. Thus, IWF outperformed IWM by 4.20% 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.