Data as of Oct 28, 2026.

vsCompare their flowsaskIQ about these two fundsAsk the committee about these two funds
Across categories

IWB vs MTUM: Differences, Returns & Fees

Share
Share on XDownload as PDF

Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IWB returned +13.1% to MTUM's +18.4%; 26% of their weight is in the same names.

askIQ about this page

askIQ about IWB and MTUM

Net assets: $49.1bn on Oct 28, 2026 for iShares Russell 1000 ETF, and $18.7bn on Oct 27, 2026 for iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.

At a glance
+13.1%
IWB total return, 1 year
+18.4%
MTUM total return, 1 year
0.15%
IWB expense ratio
0.15%
MTUM expense ratio

Pair scorecard

Both cost 0.15% a year; their one-year returns differ by 5.3 points; IWB is 2.6 times larger.

Points (pts) are percentage points.

IWB vs MTUM: Differences, Returns & Fees
MeasureIWBMTUM
Return
Total return, 1 year+13.1%+18.4%
Drawdown
Below its high11.9%, high on Jun 22, 2026
Benchmark
What it tracksRussell 1000 IndexMSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index
Cost and size
Expense ratio0.15%0.15%
Net assets, as of Oct 26, 2026$48.7bn$18.4bn
Holdings
Holdings in common26%
Top ten holdings, share of the fund35.3%35.5%

Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 27, 2026. Method

Risk and return

Apr 26, 2013 to Oct 23, 2026 · 704 weekly returns
IWB MTUM
Return
Total return edge MTUM +484.7% +554.7%
Annualized edge MTUM (slight) +13.9% +14.9%
Price return edge MTUM +372.0% +459.1%
Risk
Volatility edge IWB 16.2% 19.0%
Max drawdown edge MTUM (slight) −32.7% −31.9%
Downside capture 100.1% 101.7%
Beta 1.00 1.02
Risk-adjusted
Sharpe edge IWB (slight) 0.77 0.73
Sortino edge IWB (slight) 1.11 1.07
Treynor 0.130 0.135
Calmar edge MTUM (slight) 0.43 0.47
Against the benchmark
Alpha 0.0% a year +1.3% a year
Alpha t-stat −0.09 0.53
Information ratio −0.03 0.17
Tracking error 1.0% 9.3%

Each against its own benchmark: IWB against VONE, Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026; MTUM against MLRG, Apr 26, 2013 to Oct 23, 2026.

Reading

MTUM returned more: +554.7% to +484.7%. IWB swung less: 16.2% to 19.0%. MTUM fell slightly less at its worst: −31.9% to −32.7%.

Full scorecard

19 measures, with how each is measured
Open ↓
Risk and return: IWB vs MTUM: Differences, Returns & Fees
MeasureIWBMTUMEdgeHow it is measured
Return
Total return+484.7%+554.7%MTUMPrice change plus distributions, reinvested.
Annualized+13.9%+14.9%MTUM (slight)Total return as a yearly rate.
Price return+372.0%+459.1%MTUMPrice change alone, distributions left out.
Risk
Volatility16.2%19.0%IWBSpread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier.
Downside deviation11.2%13.0%IWBLike volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate.
Max drawdown−32.7%−31.9%MTUM (slight)Deepest fall from a high to the low after it.
Upside capture100.1%106.2%Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose.
Downside capture100.1%101.7%Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better.
Beta1.001.02Not an edgeHow far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves.
R squared1.000.76Not an edgeShare of its weekly moves its benchmark explains.
Risk-adjusted
Sharpe0.770.73IWB (slight)Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility.
Sortino1.111.07IWB (slight)Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation.
Treynor0.1300.135Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta.
Calmar0.430.47MTUM (slight)Annualized return divided by the max drawdown.
Against the benchmark
BenchmarkVONEMLRGThe ETF each fund is measured against.
Alpha0.0% a year+1.3% a yearNot significantYearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts.
Alpha t-stat−0.090.53Not an edgeHow sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance.
Alpha range−0.5% to +0.5%−3.7% to +6.3%Includes zeroThe 95% range for the yearly alpha.
Information ratio−0.030.17Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error.
Tracking error1.0%9.3%Not an edgeHow far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized.

Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 704 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.

What they share

26%

By the books each fund has filed, IWB and MTUM hold 26% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Oct 27, 2026.

0 half 100%

half

26% in common

Positions both hold · largest shared weight first IWB MTUM
ALPHABET CLASS A 2.63% 2.62%
ALPHABET CLASS C 2.12% 2.07%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY 1.47% 5.00%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 1.28% 6.06%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 1.04% 2.96%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 0.91% 3.45%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC 0.62% 3.64%
CHEVRON 0.60% 1.65%
INTEL CORPORATION 0.60% 3.92%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP 0.52% 2.22%
COCA-COLA 0.50% 1.98%
MERCK & CO INC 0.49% 1.81%
Only in one fund ↓
Only in IWB
NVIDIA 7.15%
APPLE 7.06%
MICROSOFT 5.56%
AMAZON.COM INC 3.46%
BROADCOM INC 2.24%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A 1.92%
TESLA INC 1.68%
ELI LILLY 1.44%
Only in MTUM
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 1.84%
Check overlap with more funds →

Side by side

IWB iShares Russell 1000 ETF MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Where it sits Stock ETF Stock ETF
What it is Tracks the Russell 1000 Tracks the MSCI USA Momentum Factor
Total return, 1 year +13.1% +18.4%
Its benchmark over the same days +13.2% (VONE) +13.6% (MLRG)
Gap to its benchmark −0.1 pts vs VONE +4.8 pts vs MLRG
Expense ratio 0.15% 0.15%
Already in the S&P 500 91.7% 93.2%
Holdings 1025 126
Net assets, IWB as of Oct 28, 2026 and MTUM as of Oct 27, 2026 $49.1bn $18.7bn

IWB and MTUM on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

Client brief · page 1 of 2 Report BR-8D8570A295

IWB and MTUM are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?

  1. What each follows. IWB follows Russell 1000 Index and MTUM follows MSCI USA Momentum SR Variant Index.
  2. Holdings in common. 26% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Oct 27, 2026).
  3. One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 IWB returned +13.1% and MTUM +18.4% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 5.3 points.

Data as of Oct 28, 2026.

The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.

Your saved page · Privacy.

Alert

IWB and MTUM flows, by email on Sundays.

One-click unsubscribe. See Privacy.

About each fund
IWB

IWB tracks the Russell 1000. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +13.1% with distributions reinvested, against +13.2% 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 27, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1,025 positions, with the top ten at 35.3%.

MTUM

MTUM tracks the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +18.4% with distributions reinvested, against +13.6% for its benchmark, the MSCI USA Index. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 93% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 126 positions, with the top ten at 35.5%. It sat 11.9% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWB or MTUM?
In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +13.1% and MTUM +18.4%.
Which is cheaper, IWB or MTUM?
Neither: IWB and MTUM both charge 0.15% a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 93% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds.
Other comparisons
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown

ETFIQ, IWB against MTUM, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwb-vs-mtum

Open data →

Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.