IWF vs NULG: Differences, Returns & Fees
IWF and NULG hold 37% of their weight in the same names, and NULG returned +11.5% over the year. Net assets: $125.0bn on Oct 20, 2026 for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF, and $2.7bn on Jul 31, 2026 for Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Growth ETF.
IWF costs 0.08 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 7.5 points; IWF is far larger, $121.2bn against $2.7bn.
| IWF | NULG | |
|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.26% |
| Net assets, as of Jul 31, 2026 | $121.2bn | $2.7bn |
| Total return, 1 year | +4.0% | +11.5% |
| What it tracks | Russell 1000 Growth Index | Nuveen ESG USA Large-Cap Growth Index |
| Holdings in common | 37% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 57.8% | 44.0% |
| Below its high | 5.2%, high on Oct 6, 2026 | 6.1%, high on Aug 13, 2026 |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 19, 2026.
IWF and NULG are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- What each follows. IWF follows Russell 1000 Growth Index and NULG follows Nuveen ESG USA Large-Cap Growth Index.
- Holdings in common. 37% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Oct 19, 2026 and Jul 31, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 20, 2026 IWF returned +4.0% and NULG +11.5% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 7.5 points.
Data as of Oct 20, 2026. The differences are picked by a fixed rule, in a fixed order; the PDF prints it. Page 2 has the returns, overlap, risks and sources.
Take this comparison to a client
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
Not advice. The brief uses the figures on this page, with the data date and a report id. Saved comparisons are listed on your saved page; privacy.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWF and NULG hold 37% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 19, 2026.
half
37% in common
On the same fields
IWF and NULG on the fields both publish, as of Oct 20, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
About IWF
IWF tracks the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Oct 20, 2026 it returned +4.0% with distributions reinvested, against +4.1% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 19, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 373 positions, with the top ten at 57.8%. It sat 5.2% below its high of Oct 6, 2026 on Oct 20, 2026.
About NULG
NULG tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 20, 2026 it returned +11.5% with distributions reinvested, against +15.5% for its benchmark, the MSCI USA Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Jul 31, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 69 positions, with the top ten at 44.0%. It sat 6.1% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Oct 20, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWF or NULG?
- In the year to Oct 20, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +4.0% and NULG +11.5%.
- Which is cheaper, IWF or NULG?
- IWF is cheaper, by 0.08 percentage points a year. That is about $8 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, IWF against NULG, data as of Oct 20, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwf-vs-nulg
ETFIQ. (Oct 20, 2026). IWF against NULG. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwf-vs-nulg
[IWF against NULG (ETFIQ, Oct 20, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwf-vs-nulg)
Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.