Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWF vs MTUM: how they differ
IWF and MTUM hold 40% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWF and MTUM hold 40% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IWF | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| BROADCOM INC. | 5.21% | 5.41% |
| NVIDIA CORPORATION | 13.85% | 4.65% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. | 3.86% | 5.57% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 6.18% | 2.95% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. | 2.80% | 4.04% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 4.98% | 2.39% |
| APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. | 1.70% | 2.36% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION | 1.61% | 3.62% |
| CATERPILLAR INC. | 1.44% | 3.21% |
| KLA CORPORATION | 1.17% | 1.61% |
| GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY | 1.15% | 1.90% |
| GE VERNOVA INC. | 0.94% | 2.54% |
| Only in IWF | Only in MTUM |
|---|---|
| APPLE INC. 6.72% | INTEL CORPORATION 3.84% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.11% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.76% |
| TESLA, INC. 3.65% | EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44% |
| META PLATFORMS, INC. 3.01% | JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.87% |
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 2.84% | THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. 1.69% |
| VISA INC. 1.68% | SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PUBLIC LIMIT 1.51% |
| MASTERCARD INCORPORATED 1.23% | RTX CORPORATION 1.46% |
| SANDISK CORPORATION 0.98% | MORGAN STANLEY 1.32% |
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.
| IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Russell 1000 growth | MSCI USA Momentum Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +7.0% | +21.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −10.5 pts | +4.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 93.6% | 98.2% |
| Holdings | 368 | 125 |
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.
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWF or MTUM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IWF or MTUM?
- IWF charges 0.18% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IWF and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 40% 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, IWF against MTUM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-MTUM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources