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

IWF vs MTUM: how they differ

IWF and MTUM hold 27% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and MTUM hold 27% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWF and MTUM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFMTUM
MICRON TECHNOLOGY3.35%5.20%
ALPHABET CLASS A5.88%2.69%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES2.49%5.39%
ALPHABET CLASS C4.77%2.13%
LAM RESEARCH1.13%2.31%
CATERPILLAR INC1.11%2.14%
APPLIED MATERIAL INC1.09%2.87%
PALO ALTO NETWORKS0.83%2.40%
GE VERNOVA0.75%1.49%
SANDISK0.75%3.10%
TEXAS INSTRUMENT INC0.71%1.18%
KLA0.70%1.18%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in MTUM
NVIDIA 15.46%INTEL CORPORATION 4.14%
APPLE 7.77%CISCO SYSTEMS INC 3.48%
MICROSOFT 5.55%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.38%
BROADCOM INC 5.10%EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 2.69%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A 3.52%SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 2.35%
TESLA INC 3.22%UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.08%
ELI LILLY 2.72%MERCK & CO INC 1.83%
VISA CLASS A 1.84%CHEVRON 1.52%

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.

IWF and MTUM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isRussell 1000 growthMSCI USA Momentum Factor
Total return, 1 year+7.0%+21.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts+4.3 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%98.2%
Holdings315128

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.

MTUM in plain words

MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 128 positions, with the top ten at 35.3%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or MTUM?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or MTUM?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 27% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources