Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWF vs VBK: how they differ
IWF and VBK hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and VBK returned more over the year.
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWF and VBK hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IWF | VBK |
|---|---|---|
| Astera Labs, Inc | 0.22% | 1.05% |
| Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd | 0.13% | 1.27% |
| NATERA, INC. | 0.11% | 1.04% |
| EMCOR GROUP, INC. | 0.11% | 0.52% |
| REVOLUTION MEDICINES, INC. | 0.11% | 1.07% |
| CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION | 0.09% | 0.82% |
| FTAI Aviation Ltd. | 0.08% | 0.78% |
| ATI INC | 0.08% | 0.76% |
| CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC. | 0.08% | 0.83% |
| MASTEC, INC. | 0.08% | 0.74% |
| MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS HOLDINGS, INC | 0.08% | 0.74% |
| TEXAS PACIFIC LAND CORPORATION | 0.08% | 0.36% |
| Only in IWF | Only in VBK |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORPORATION 13.85% | Okta Inc 0.65% |
| APPLE INC. 6.72% | RB Global Inc 0.61% |
| ALPHABET INC. 6.18% | Liberty Media Corp-Liberty Formula One 0.57% |
| BROADCOM INC. 5.21% | Incyte Corp 0.54% |
| ALPHABET INC. 4.98% | Roivant Sciences Ltd 0.50% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.11% | Generac Holdings Inc 0.49% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86% | Nextpower Inc 0.48% |
| TESLA, INC. 3.65% | Royal Gold Inc 0.48% |
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 | VBK Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | Russell 1000 growth | Small-Cap Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +7.0% | +13.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −10.5 pts | −3.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.05% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 93.6% | 10.2% |
| Holdings | 368 | 545 |
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.
VBK in plain words
VBK is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 10% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 545 positions, with the top ten at 9.3%. It sat 7.0% below its high of Aug 17, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWF or VBK?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and VBK returned +13.8%, so VBK returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IWF or VBK?
- IWF charges 0.18% a year and VBK charges 0.05%, so VBK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IWF and VBK overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 10% of VBK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 VBK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-VBK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources