Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWF vs VOOG: how they differ
IWF and VOOG hold 74% of their weight in the same names, and VOOG returned more over the year.
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWF and VOOG hold 74% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IWF | VOOG |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORPORATION | 13.85% | 14.29% |
| APPLE INC. | 6.72% | 6.38% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 6.18% | 6.17% |
| BROADCOM INC. | 5.21% | 5.90% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 4.98% | 4.90% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION | 4.11% | 9.31% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. | 3.86% | 3.04% |
| META PLATFORMS, INC. | 3.01% | 3.85% |
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY | 2.84% | 2.44% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. | 2.80% | 2.34% |
| TESLA, INC. | 3.65% | 2.12% |
| CATERPILLAR INC. | 1.44% | 1.14% |
| Only in IWF | Only in VOOG |
|---|---|
| TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED 0.80% | Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.42% |
| THE HOME DEPOT, INC. 0.77% | JPMorgan Chase & Co 1.43% |
| MARVELL TECHNOLOGY, INC. 0.77% | Johnson & Johnson 0.89% |
| WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION 0.64% | Cisco Systems Inc 0.70% |
| COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 0.54% | RTX Corp 0.67% |
| LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 0.31% | Goldman Sachs Group Inc/The 0.53% |
| MCKESSON CORPORATION 0.26% | Philip Morris International Inc 0.43% |
| SNOWFLAKE INC. 0.25% | Morgan Stanley 0.42% |
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 iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | VOOG Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | Russell 1000 growth | S&P 500 Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +7.0% | +17.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −10.5 pts | +0.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.05% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 93.6% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 368 | 146 |
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.
VOOG in plain words
VOOG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.8% 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 May 31, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 146 positions, with the top ten at 60.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWF or VOOG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and VOOG returned +17.8%, so VOOG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IWF or VOOG?
- IWF charges 0.18% a year and VOOG charges 0.05%, so VOOG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IWF and VOOG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 100% of VOOG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 74% 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 VOOG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-VOOG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources