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 VOE: how they differ

IWF and VOE hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and VOE returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and Vanguard Mid-Cap Value Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and VOE hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWF and VOE both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFVOE
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC.0.21%1.20%
CENCORA, INC.0.16%0.91%
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.0.14%0.48%
CUMMINS INC.0.13%1.71%
MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION0.11%1.29%
KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.0.10%1.04%
CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.0.08%0.96%
DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.0.07%0.41%
SYSCO CORPORATION0.06%0.69%
UNITED RENTALS, INC.0.05%1.23%
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION0.04%0.63%
EBAY INC.0.03%0.86%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in VOE
NVIDIA CORPORATION 13.85%CRH PLC 1.24%
APPLE INC. 6.72%General Motors Co 1.21%
ALPHABET INC. 6.18%SLB Ltd 1.21%
BROADCOM INC. 5.21%Warner Bros Discovery Inc 1.10%
ALPHABET INC. 4.98%PACCAR Inc 1.10%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.11%Digital Realty Trust Inc 1.09%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86%Allstate Corp/The 1.06%
TESLA, INC. 3.65%Sempra 1.05%

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 VOE on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
VOE
Vanguard Mid-Cap Value Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isRussell 1000 growthMid-Cap Value
Total return, 1 year+7.0%+20.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts+2.7 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.05%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%96.6%
Holdings368170

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.

VOE in plain words

VOE is an index equity fund tracking the Mid-Cap Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.2% 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, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 12.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or VOE?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and VOE returned +20.2%, so VOE returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or VOE?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and VOE charges 0.05%, so VOE is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and VOE overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 97% of VOE by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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 VOE, 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 VOE, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-VOE Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources