Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DYNF vs IWF: how they differ
DYNF and IWF hold 50% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and IWF hold 50% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | DYNF | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 8.62% | 13.85% |
| Apple Inc | 7.75% | 6.72% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.35% | 4.11% |
| Broadcom Inc | 3.25% | 5.21% |
| Alphabet Inc | 2.87% | 6.18% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 2.50% | 3.01% |
| Alphabet Inc | 2.10% | 4.98% |
| Tesla Inc | 1.74% | 3.65% |
| Lam Research Corp | 2.71% | 1.61% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 1.41% | 1.70% |
| Micron Technology Inc | 1.35% | 3.86% |
| Caterpillar Inc | 1.28% | 1.44% |
| Only in DYNF | Only in IWF |
|---|---|
| JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.59% | MASTERCARD INCORPORATED 1.23% |
| Cisco Systems Inc 2.76% | KLA CORPORATION 1.17% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.38% | PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. 0.82% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp 1.93% | MARVELL TECHNOLOGY, INC. 0.77% |
| Johnson & Johnson 1.92% | ARISTA NETWORKS, INC. 0.53% |
| Duke Energy Corp 1.63% | AMGEN INC. 0.41% |
| Parker-Hannifin Corp 1.50% | TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC LIMITED COMPAN 0.32% |
| Hartford Insurance Group Inc/The 1.48% | QUANTA SERVICES, INC. 0.32% |
Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.
| DYNF iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF | IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active | Russell 1000 growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +20.8% | +7.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +3.3 pts | −10.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.26% | 0.18% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 98.8% | 93.6% |
| Holdings | 187 | 368 |
DYNF in plain words
DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.
IWF in plain words
IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 368 positions, with the top ten at 54.4%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or IWF?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and IWF returned +7.0%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, DYNF or IWF?
- DYNF charges 0.26% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do DYNF and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 50% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, DYNF against IWF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DYNF-IWF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources