Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
BND vs IWC: how they differ
BND is a bond index fund and IWC an equity index fund, and over the year IWC returned more, +31.3% against −0.7%.
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund and iShares Micro-Cap ETF.
| BND Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund | IWC iShares Micro-Cap ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Vanguard | iShares |
| What it is | US aggregate bonds | Russell Microcap |
| Total return, 1 year | −0.7% | +31.3% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −18.2 pts | +13.8 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | not published |
| Holdings | not filed | 1252 |
BND in plain words
BND is a bond fund tracking the US aggregate bonds. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −0.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. It sat 3.8% below its high of Aug 6, 2020 on Sep 11, 2026.
IWC in plain words
IWC is an index equity fund tracking the Russell Microcap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +31.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1252 positions, with the top ten at 5.1%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, BND or IWC?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, BND returned −0.7% and IWC returned +31.3%, so IWC returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
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, BND against IWC, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/bnd-vs-iwc Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources