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 URTH: how they differ

IWF and URTH hold 43% of their weight in the same names, and URTH returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and iShares MSCI World ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and URTH hold 43% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWF and URTH both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFURTH
NVIDIA CORPORATION13.85%5.64%
APPLE INC.6.72%5.04%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION4.11%3.50%
ALPHABET INC.6.18%2.43%
BROADCOM INC.5.21%2.21%
ALPHABET INC.4.98%2.01%
META PLATFORMS, INC.3.01%1.51%
TESLA, INC.3.65%1.35%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.3.86%1.20%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY2.84%0.97%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.2.80%0.92%
VISA INC.1.68%0.60%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in URTH
SANDISK CORPORATION 0.98%JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 0.90%
SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 0.24%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.72%
Nu Holdings Ltd. 0.14%ASML Holding N.V. 0.69%
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI PLC 0.11%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.67%
CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 0.09%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 0.60%
ATI INC 0.08%INTEL CORPORATION 0.57%
MASTEC, INC. 0.08%CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 0.52%
MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS HOLDINGS, INC 0.08%CHEVRON CORPORATION 0.38%

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 and May 31, 2026.

IWF and URTH on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
URTH
iShares MSCI World ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isRussell 1000 growthMSCI World
Total return, 1 year+7.0%+17.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts−0.1 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.24%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%70.3%
Holdings3681322

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.

URTH in plain words

URTH is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI World. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.24% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 70% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1322 positions, with the top ten at 27.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or URTH?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and URTH returned +17.4%, so URTH returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or URTH?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and URTH charges 0.24%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and URTH overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 70% of URTH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 43% 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 URTH, 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 URTH, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-URTH Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources