Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWF vs RDVY: how they differ
IWF and RDVY hold 23% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWF and RDVY hold 23% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IWF | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| ALPHABET INC. | 6.18% | 2.12% |
| NVIDIA CORPORATION | 13.85% | 1.91% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. | 3.86% | 1.83% |
| APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. | 1.70% | 4.69% |
| VISA INC. | 1.68% | 1.82% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION | 1.61% | 4.42% |
| META PLATFORMS, INC. | 3.01% | 1.50% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION | 4.11% | 1.45% |
| APPLE INC. | 6.72% | 1.44% |
| MASTERCARD INCORPORATED | 1.23% | 1.19% |
| KLA CORPORATION | 1.17% | 4.14% |
| GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY | 1.15% | 2.13% |
| Only in IWF | Only in RDVY |
|---|---|
| BROADCOM INC. 5.21% | ALLSTATE CORP (THE) 2.01% |
| ALPHABET INC. 4.98% | TRAVELERS COMPANIES INC (THE) 2.00% |
| TESLA, INC. 3.65% | SNAP-ON INC 2.00% |
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 2.84% | CHUBB LTD (SWITZERLAND) 1.97% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 2.80% | MUELLER INDUSTRIES INC 1.93% |
| CATERPILLAR INC. 1.44% | JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY 1.91% |
| SANDISK CORPORATION 0.98% | SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL 1.83% |
| NETFLIX, INC. 0.89% | BAKER HUGHES COMPANY 1.77% |
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 iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | RDVY First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | First Trust |
| What it is | Russell 1000 growth | First Rising Dividend Achievers |
| Total return, 1 year | +7.0% | +22.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −10.5 pts | +4.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.47% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 93.6% | 94.4% |
| Holdings | 368 | 71 |
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.
RDVY in plain words
RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% 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 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWF or RDVY?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IWF or RDVY?
- IWF charges 0.18% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IWF and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 23% 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 RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources