Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

IWF vs MGK: how they differ

IWF and MGK hold 72% of their weight in the same names, and MGK returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and Vanguard Mega Cap Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and MGK hold 72% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWF and MGK both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFMGK
NVIDIA CORPORATION13.85%13.29%
APPLE INC.6.72%12.19%
ALPHABET INC.6.18%5.93%
ALPHABET INC.4.98%4.67%
BROADCOM INC.5.21%4.28%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION4.11%7.52%
TESLA, INC.3.65%3.93%
META PLATFORMS, INC.3.01%4.08%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY2.84%3.41%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.2.80%3.20%
VISA INC.1.68%1.82%
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION1.61%1.93%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in MGK
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86%Intel Corp 1.10%
CATERPILLAR INC. 1.44%Welltower Inc 0.71%
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1.15%Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc 0.60%
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED 0.80%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.51%
THE HOME DEPOT, INC. 0.77%Equinix Inc 0.50%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 0.54%Synopsys Inc 0.45%
AMGEN INC. 0.41%O'Reilly Automotive Inc 0.43%
VERTIV HOLDINGS CO 0.38%Ecolab Inc 0.42%

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 Jun 30, 2026.

IWF and MGK on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
MGK
Vanguard Mega Cap Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isRussell 1000 growthMega Cap Growth
Total return, 1 year+7.0%+14.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts−2.6 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%99.2%
Holdings36856

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.

MGK in plain words

MGK is an index equity fund tracking the Mega Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 56 positions, with the top ten at 63.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or MGK?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and MGK returned +14.9%, so MGK returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or MGK?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and MGK charges 0.07%, so MGK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and MGK overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 99% of MGK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 72% 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.

IWF against MGK, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, IWF against MGK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-MGK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources