BUSA vs. IWF

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BUSA (Brandes U.S. Value ETF) and IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BUSA is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Brandes, while IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index. BUSA is actively managed, while IWF is passively managed. Over the past year, BUSA returned 24.37% vs 25.41% for IWF. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BUSA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IWF.

Performance

BUSA vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brandes U.S. Value ETF (BUSA) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BUSA achieves a 8.42% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's 7.28% return.

BUSA

• 1D: 1.39%
• 1M: 2.61%
• YTD: 8.42%
• 6M: 10.80%
• 1Y: 24.37%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWF

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 5.33%
• YTD: 7.28%
• 6M: 6.46%
• 1Y: 25.41%
• 3Y*: 24.91%
• 5Y*: 15.28%
• 10Y*: 18.47%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BUSA vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BUSA Brandes U.S. Value ETF	8.42%	17.56%	15.76%	10.65%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	7.28%	18.33%	33.12%	13.74%

Correlation

The correlation between BUSA and IWF is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2023	0.45

BUSA vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BUSA	IWF
Healthcare	23.8%	7.0%
Financial Services	20.1%	4.9%
Technology	12.9%	53.2%
Industrials	12.4%	5.0%
Energy	7.3%	0.4%
Communication Services	5.6%	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	4.9%	12.7%
Basic Materials	4.1%	0.3%
Utilities	3.4%	1.1%
Real Estate	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

BUSA vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BUSA

BUSA Risk / Return Rank: 63
BUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
BUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 61
BUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
BUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 62

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 42
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 47
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 35

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BUSA vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brandes U.S. Value ETF (BUSA) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	BUSA	IWF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	1.65	+0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	2.27	+0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.29	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.22	1.57	+1.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.94	5.24	+5.70
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BUSA vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BUSA Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BUSA and IWF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BUSA	IWF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	1.65	+0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.72	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.88	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.49	0.40	+1.09

Drawdowns

BUSA vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BUSA drawdown since its inception was -14.19%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BUSA and IWF.

Drawdown Indicators

	BUSA	IWF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.19%	-64.25%	+50.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.61%	-16.27%	+8.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.36%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-32.72%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.51%	+1.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.15%	-22.08%	+19.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	4.86%	-2.63%

Volatility

BUSA vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brandes U.S. Value ETF (BUSA) is 2.79%, while iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a volatility of 3.60%. This indicates that BUSA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BUSA	IWF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.79%	3.60%	-0.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.53%	11.65%	-3.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.88%	15.43%	-3.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.66%	21.39%	-7.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.66%	20.96%	-7.30%

BUSA vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

BUSA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IWF's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

BUSA vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

BUSA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.46%, more than IWF's 0.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BUSA Brandes U.S. Value ETF	1.46%	1.53%	1.37%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.33%	0.36%	0.46%	0.67%	0.91%	0.49%	0.66%	0.99%	1.27%	1.10%	1.43%	1.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BUSA and IWF in my portfolio?

BUSA and IWF have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BUSA or IWF?

IWF has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to BUSA (2.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BUSA dropped -14.19% vs IWF's -64.25%.

Which ETF is better, BUSA or IWF?

On 1-year performance, IWF leads with 25.41% vs 24.37% for BUSA. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, BUSA has been the lower-risk option at 2.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BUSA or IWF?

Over the 1-year period, IWF has performed better with a 25.41% return vs 24.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BUSA or IWF?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for BUSA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BUSA or IWF?

BUSA has the higher dividend yield at 1.46%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

What is the main difference between BUSA and IWF?

BUSA is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while IWF is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Brandes and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for BUSA and 0.18% for IWF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BUSA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs 1.65), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.