Data as of Oct 28, 2026.

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

IWF vs TLT: Differences, Returns & Fees

Share
Share on XDownload as PDF

Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IWF returned +0.9% to TLT's −7.9%; 0% of their weight is in the same names.

askIQ about this page

askIQ about IWF and TLT

Net assets on Oct 27, 2026: $124.7bn for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and $47.4bn for iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF.

At a glance
+0.9%
IWF total return, 1 year
−7.9%
TLT total return, 1 year
0.18%
IWF expense ratio
0.15%
TLT expense ratio

Pair scorecard

TLT costs 0.03 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 8.8 points; IWF is 2.6 times larger.

IWF vs TLT: Differences, Returns & Fees
MeasureIWFTLT
Return
Total return, 1 year+0.9%−7.9%
Drawdown
Below its high4.8%, high on Oct 6, 202642.6%, high on Aug 4, 2020
Benchmark
What it tracksRussell 1000 Growth IndexICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index
Cost and size
Expense ratio0.18%0.15%
Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026$124.7bn$47.4bn
Holdings
Holdings in common0%
In the S&P 500, by weight94%
Top ten holdings, share of the fund57.5%

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

What they share

0%

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and TLT hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Oct 27, 2026.

0 half 100%

half

0% in common

Positions both hold · largest shared weight first IWF TLT
Only in one fund ↓
Only in IWF
NVIDIA 15.30%
APPLE 8.18%
MICROSOFT 5.94%
ALPHABET CLASS A 5.62%
BROADCOM INC 4.79%
ALPHABET CLASS C 4.53%
TESLA INC 3.58%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A 3.36%
Only in TLT
TREASURY BOND 4.32%
TREASURY BOND 4.12%
TREASURY BOND (OLD) 4.07%
TREASURY BOND 4.02%
TREASURY BOND 3.93%
TREASURY BOND 3.92%
TREASURY BOND 3.89%
TREASURY BOND 3.88%
Check overlap with more funds →

Side by side

IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF TLT iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF
Where it sits Stock ETF Bond ETF
What it is Tracks the Russell 1000 growth Tracks an index of 20+ year Treasuries
Total return, 1 year +0.9% −7.9%
Its benchmark over the same days +1.1% (VONG) −7.8% (BBLB)
Gap to its benchmark −0.2 pts vs VONG −0.1 pts vs BBLB
Expense ratio 0.18% 0.15%
Holdings 374 47
Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 $124.7bn $47.4bn

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

Alert

IWF and TLT flows, by email on Sundays.

One-click unsubscribe. See Privacy.

About each fund
IWF

IWF tracks the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +0.9% with distributions reinvested, against +1.1% 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 27, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 374 positions, with the top ten at 57.5%. It sat 4.8% below its high of Oct 6, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.

TLT

TLT tracks an index of 20+ year Treasuries. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned −7.9% with distributions reinvested, against −7.8% for its benchmark, the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. It sat 42.6% below its high of Aug 4, 2020 on Oct 28, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or TLT?
In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +0.9% and TLT −7.9%.
Which is cheaper, IWF or TLT?
TLT is cheaper, by 0.03 percentage points a year. That is about $3 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown

ETFIQ, IWF against TLT, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwf-vs-tlt

Open data →

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