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

IDEV vs IWF: how they differ

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

iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions IDEV and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIDEVIWF
SPOTIFY TECHNOLOGY0.26%0.25%
BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT VOTING0.05%0.05%
RESTAURANTS BRANDS INTERNATIONAL0.08%0.05%
USD CASH0.13%0.05%
HEIDELBERG MATERIALS AG0.08%0.04%
ANGLO AMERICAN PLC0.20%0.03%
HYDRO ONE0.04%0.02%
AEROPORTS DE PARIS SA0.01%0.12%
AMPLIFON0.01%0.01%
BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY0.01%0.15%
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA0.17%0.01%
HAYS0.01%0.01%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IDEVOnly in IWF
ASML HOLDING 2.29%NVIDIA 15.46%
HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 1.22%APPLE 7.77%
ROCHE PS PAR AG 1.02%ALPHABET CLASS A 5.88%
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.98%MICROSOFT 5.55%
SHELL PLC 0.91%BROADCOM INC 5.10%
MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP 0.88%ALPHABET CLASS C 4.77%
NOVARTIS AG 0.87%META PLATFORMS CLASS A 3.52%
NESTLE SA 0.85%MICRON TECHNOLOGY 3.35%

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.

IDEV and IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IDEV
iShares Core MSCI International Developed Markets ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isCore MSCI International Developed MarketsRussell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+18.7%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+1.2 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.18%
Already in the S&P 5000.1%93.6%
Holdings1782315

IDEV in plain words

IDEV is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI International Developed Markets. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1782 positions, with the top ten at 10.6%.

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, IDEV or IWF?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IDEV returned +18.7% and IWF returned +7.0%, so IDEV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IDEV or IWF?
IDEV charges 0.04% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so IDEV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IDEV and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IDEV and 94% of IWF 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources