Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

DYNF vs IWF: how they differ

DYNF and IWF hold 52% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and IWF hold 52% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DYNF and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDYNFIWF
NVIDIA8.13%15.46%
APPLE7.62%7.77%
MICROSOFT4.75%5.55%
BROADCOM INC2.59%5.10%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A2.42%3.52%
ALPHABET CLASS A2.39%5.88%
ALPHABET CLASS C1.98%4.77%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY1.83%3.35%
TESLA INC1.52%3.22%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES1.50%2.49%
ELI LILLY1.17%2.72%
LAM RESEARCH1.53%1.13%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DYNFOnly in IWF
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 3.46%KLA 0.70%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 2.73%BOEING 0.31%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.03%SPOTIFY TECHNOLOGY 0.25%
SALESFORCE 1.62%CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS 0.24%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.54%DOORDASH CLASS A 0.23%
CHEVRON 1.51%BLACKSTONE 0.22%
TRAVELERS COMPANIES 1.45%CINTAS 0.21%
PARKER-HANNIFIN 1.29%HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS 0.21%

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 Sep 10, 2026.

DYNF and IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isU.S. Equity Factor Rotation ActiveRussell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+20.8%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.3 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.26%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50098.8%93.6%
Holdings234315

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 234 positions, with the top ten at 40.3%.

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 Sep 10, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 315 positions, with the top ten at 57.3%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or IWF?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and IWF returned +7.0%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DYNF or IWF?
DYNF charges 0.26% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DYNF and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 52% 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.

DYNF against IWF, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, DYNF against IWF, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/dynf-vs-iwf Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources