IWB vs LRGC: Differences, Returns & Fees
IWB and LRGC hold 42% of their weight in the same names, and IWB returned +16.6% over the year. Net assets: $49.6bn on Oct 9, 2026 for iShares Russell 1000 ETF, and $1.4bn on Oct 8, 2026 for AB US Large Cap Strategic Equities ETF.
IWB costs 0.24 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 3.2 points; IWB is far larger, $49.4bn against $1.4bn.
| IWB | LRGC | |
|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.39% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 8, 2026 | $49.4bn | $1.4bn |
| Total return, 1 year | +16.6% | +13.4% |
| What it tracks | Russell 1000 Index | No index, actively managed |
| Holdings in common | 42% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 36.1% | 45.1% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated May 31, 2026 and Oct 9, 2026.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWB and LRGC hold 42% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated May 31, 2026 and Oct 9, 2026.
half
42% in common
On the same fields
IWB and LRGC on the fields both publish, as of Oct 9, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
About IWB
IWB tracks the Russell 1000. Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +16.6% with distributions reinvested, against +16.8% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 9, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1,025 positions, with the top ten at 36.1%.
About LRGC
LRGC is actively managed and tracks no index. Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +13.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.3% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.39% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 69 positions, with the top ten at 45.1%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWB or LRGC?
- In the year to Oct 9, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.6% and LRGC +13.4%.
- Which is cheaper, IWB or LRGC?
- IWB is cheaper, by 0.24 percentage points a year. That is about $24 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure; a link is not an endorsement. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, IWB against LRGC, data as of Oct 9, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwb-vs-lrgc
ETFIQ. (Oct 9, 2026). IWB against LRGC. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwb-vs-lrgc
[IWB against LRGC (ETFIQ, Oct 9, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwb-vs-lrgc)
Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.