Data as of Oct 28, 2026.
IWF vs XLG: Differences, Returns & Fees
Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, IWF returned +0.9% to XLG's +6.4%; 64% of their weight is in the same names.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about IWF and XLG
Net assets on Oct 27, 2026: $124.7bn for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and $11.9bn for Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF.
Pair scorecard
IWF costs 0.02 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 5.5 points; IWF is 10.5 times larger.
| Measure | IWF | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +0.9% | +6.4% |
| Drawdown | ||
| Below its high | 4.8%, high on Oct 6, 2026 | |
| Benchmark | ||
| What it tracks | Russell 1000 Growth Index | S&P 500 Top 50 Index |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.20% |
| Net assets, as of Oct 27, 2026 | $124.7bn | $11.9bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | 64% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 57.5% | 60.3% |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 27, 2026. Method
Risk and return
May 20, 2005 to Oct 23, 2026 · 1,118 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: IWF against VONG, Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026; XLG against IVV, May 20, 2005 to Oct 23, 2026.
IWF returned more: +1,154.8% to +882.5%. XLG swung slightly less: 17.0% to 18.6%. IWF fell slightly less at its worst: −50.4% to −51.7%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | IWF | XLG | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +1,154.8% | +882.5% | IWF | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +12.5% | +11.2% | IWF | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +894.5% | +572.4% | IWF | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 18.6% | 17.0% | XLG (slight) | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 12.8% | 11.8% | XLG (slight) | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −50.4% | −51.7% | IWF (slight) | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 99.8% | 97.7% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 100.1% | 98.5% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.00 | 0.95 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 1.00 | 0.95 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.63 | 0.61 | IWF (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.91 | 0.87 | IWF (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.149 | 0.108 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.25 | 0.22 | IWF | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | VONG | IVV | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −0.1% a year | +0.5% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.58 | 0.68 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −0.6% to +0.3% | −1.0% to +2.1% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | −0.11 | 0.02 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 1.0% | 3.8% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 1,118 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
What they share
By the books each fund has filed, IWF and XLG hold 64% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Oct 27, 2026.
half
64% in common
Only in one fund ↓
Side by side
IWF and XLG on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF and XLG do different jobs. What does each one do in a portfolio?
- What each follows. IWF follows Russell 1000 Growth Index and XLG follows S&P 500 Top 50 Index.
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 IWF returned +0.9% and XLG +6.4% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 5.5 points.
- Number of holdings. IWF holds 374 positions and XLG holds 53.
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.
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.
XLG
XLG tracks the S&P 500 top 50. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +6.4% with distributions reinvested, against +13.7% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 53 positions, with the top ten at 60.3%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWF or XLG?
- In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +0.9% and XLG +6.4%.
- Which is cheaper, IWF or XLG?
- IWF is cheaper, by 0.02 percentage points a year. That is about $2 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Links are sources, not endorsements. 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 XLG, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwf-vs-xlg
ETFIQ. (Oct 28, 2026). IWF against XLG. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwf-vs-xlg
[IWF against XLG (ETFIQ, Oct 28, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwf-vs-xlg)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.