IWF vs. SMH
IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) and SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth Index, while SMH is a Semiconductors fund tracking the MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWF returned 18.17%/yr vs 37.49%/yr for SMH. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWF charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for SMH.
Performance
IWF vs. SMH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 2.87% return, which is significantly lower than SMH's 72.15% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has underperformed SMH with an annualized return of 18.17%, while SMH has yielded a comparatively higher 37.49% annualized return.
IWF
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- -2.17%
- YTD
- 2.87%
- 6M
- 3.39%
- 1Y
- 18.87%
- 3Y*
- 22.33%
- 5Y*
- 13.90%
- 10Y*
- 18.17%
SMH
- 1D
- 1.72%
- 1M
- 8.30%
- YTD
- 72.15%
- 6M
- 75.62%
- 1Y
- 136.32%
- 3Y*
- 60.05%
- 5Y*
- 38.42%
- 10Y*
- 37.49%
IWF vs. SMH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | 2.87% | 18.33% | 33.12% | 42.59% | -29.31% | 27.43% | 38.25% | 35.86% | -1.67% | 29.95% |
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 72.15% | 49.17% | 39.10% | 73.38% | -33.53% | 42.13% | 55.53% | 64.45% | -9.05% | 38.48% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWF and SMH is 0.73, 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 | 0.73 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.80 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.83 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.81 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2000 | 0.78 |
The correlation between IWF and SMH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.
IWF vs. SMH - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IWF
SMH
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
-
Communication Services
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Financial Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Utilities
-
Real Estate
-
Energy
-
Basic Materials
-
Technology
IWF
SMH
Consumer Cyclical
IWF
SMH
-
Communication Services
IWF
SMH
-
Healthcare
IWF
SMH
-
Industrials
IWF
SMH
-
Financial Services
IWF
SMH
-
Consumer Defensive
IWF
SMH
-
Utilities
IWF
SMH
-
Real Estate
IWF
SMH
-
Energy
IWF
SMH
-
Basic Materials
IWF
SMH
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IWF vs. SMH — Risk / Return Rank
IWF
SMH
IWF vs. SMH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH). 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 | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.94 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.60 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.60 | -0.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.16 | 9.18 | -8.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.83 | 33.74 | -29.90 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IWF vs. SMH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, smaller than the maximum SMH drawdown of -84.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and SMH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWF | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -64.25% | -84.96% | +20.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.27% | -14.93% | -1.34% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.36% | -35.74% | +12.38% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -32.72% | -45.30% | +12.58% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.72% | -45.30% | +12.58% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.56% | -2.81% | -2.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.06% | -41.04% | +18.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.93% | 4.06% | +0.87% |
Volatility
IWF vs. SMH - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is 5.36%, while VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) has a volatility of 16.25%. This indicates that IWF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWF | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.36% | 16.25% | -10.89% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.40% | 27.73% | -15.33% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.95% | 33.20% | -17.25% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.46% | 35.47% | -14.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.00% | 32.82% | -11.82% |
IWF vs. SMH - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than SMH's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWF vs. SMH - Dividend Comparison
IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, more than SMH's 0.18% 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% |
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 0.18% | 0.31% | 0.44% | 0.60% | 1.18% | 0.51% | 0.69% | 1.50% | 1.88% | 1.43% | 0.80% | 2.14% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWF and SMH have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SMH has higher volatility (16.25%) compared to IWF (5.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs SMH's -84.96%.
On 10-year performance, SMH leads with 37.49% vs 18.17% for IWF. On fees, IWF is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, IWF has been the lower-risk option at 5.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, SMH has performed better with a 37.49% return vs 18.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWF is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for SMH.
IWF has the higher dividend yield at 0.35%, compared with 0.18% for SMH.
IWF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while SMH is Semiconductors. IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while SMH tracks MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.35% for SMH.
SMH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.13 vs 1.19), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWF and SMH
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer