IWF vs. MOAT

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and MOAT (VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while MOAT is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 18.15%/yr vs 13.35%/yr for MOAT. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for MOAT.

Performance

IWF vs. MOAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 2.83% return, which is significantly higher than MOAT's -1.06% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed MOAT with an annualized return of 18.15%, while MOAT has yielded a comparatively lower 13.35% annualized return.

IWF

• 1D: 1.57%
• 1M: -1.44%
• YTD: 2.83%
• 6M: 1.71%
• 1Y: 19.30%
• 3Y*: 22.57%
• 5Y*: 13.90%
• 10Y*: 18.15%

MOAT

• 1D: 1.16%
• 1M: 2.54%
• YTD: -1.06%
• 6M: -2.38%
• 1Y: 12.21%
• 3Y*: 10.67%
• 5Y*: 7.69%
• 10Y*: 13.35%

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

IWF vs. MOAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	2.83%	18.33%	33.12%	42.59%	-29.31%	27.43%	38.25%	35.86%	-1.67%	29.95%
MOAT VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF	-1.06%	13.20%	10.73%	31.89%	-13.66%	24.12%	14.84%	34.79%	-1.28%	23.18%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and MOAT is 0.56, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 25, 2012	0.78

Over the past year, the correlation between IWF and MOAT has dropped to 0.56 - well below their long-term average of 0.78, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IWF vs. MOAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWF	MOAT
Technology	53.2%	32.8%
Consumer Cyclical	12.7%	10.3%
Communication Services	12.3%	2.4%
Healthcare	7.0%	16.0%
Industrials	5.0%	13.5%
Financial Services	4.9%	6.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	17.5%
Utilities	1.1%	-
Real Estate	0.4%	0.8%
Energy	0.4%	-
Basic Materials	0.3%	-

Return for Risk

IWF vs. MOAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF

IWF Risk / Return Rank: 36
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 39
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 32

MOAT

MOAT Risk / Return Rank: 28
MOAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
MOAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
MOAT Omega Ratio Rank: 27
MOAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
MOAT Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

IWF vs. MOAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	IWF	MOAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.21	0.88	+0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.70	1.35	+0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.15	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.19	0.99	+0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.93	3.02	+0.91

IWF vs. MOAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.21, which is higher than the MOAT Sharpe Ratio of 0.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and MOAT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IWF vs. MOAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than MOAT's maximum drawdown of -33.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and MOAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWF	MOAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.25%	-33.31%	-30.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.27%	-12.43%	-3.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.36%	-21.44%	-1.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.72%	-23.96%	-8.76%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.72%	-33.31%	+0.59%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.59%	-4.84%	-0.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.06%	-3.83%	-18.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.92%	4.05%	+0.87%

Volatility

IWF vs. MOAT - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 5.43% compared to VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) at 4.16%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MOAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWF	MOAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.43%	4.16%	+1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.40%	10.04%	+2.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.96%	13.94%	+2.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.47%	18.21%	+3.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.01%	18.69%	+2.32%

IWF vs. MOAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than MOAT's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWF vs. MOAT - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than MOAT's 1.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF	0.35%	0.36%	0.46%	0.67%	0.91%	0.49%	0.66%	0.99%	1.27%	1.10%	1.43%	1.37%
MOAT VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF	1.37%	1.36%	1.37%	0.86%	1.25%	1.08%	1.46%	1.31%	1.79%	1.07%	1.17%	2.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWF and MOAT in my portfolio?

IWF and MOAT have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWF or MOAT?

IWF has higher volatility (5.43%) compared to MOAT (4.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs MOAT's -33.31%.

Which ETF is better, IWF or MOAT?

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.15% vs 13.35% for MOAT. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, MOAT has been the lower-risk option at 4.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWF or MOAT?

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.15% return vs 13.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWF or MOAT?

IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for MOAT.

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

MOAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.37%, compared with 0.35% for IWF.

What is the main difference between IWF and MOAT?

IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while MOAT is Large Cap Blend Equities. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while MOAT tracks Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.47% for MOAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.21 vs 0.88), 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.