Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWC vs VXF: how they differ
IWC and VXF are both equity index funds, and over the year IWC returned more, +31.3% against +14.1%.
iShares Micro-Cap ETF and Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund.
| IWC iShares Micro-Cap ETF | VXF Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | Russell Microcap | Extended Market |
| Total return, 1 year | +31.3% | +14.1% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +13.8 pts | −3.4 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.05% |
| Holdings | not filed | 3365 |
IWC in plain words
IWC is an index equity fund tracking the Russell Microcap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +31.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 5.0% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
VXF in plain words
VXF is an index equity fund tracking the Extended Market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 3365 positions, with the top ten at 7.6%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWC or VXF?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWC returned +31.3% and VXF returned +14.1%, so IWC returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
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, IWC against VXF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWC-VXF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources