PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IWF vs. VV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IWF vs. VV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Vanguard Large-Cap ETF (VV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWF achieves a 7.28% return, which is significantly lower than VV's 11.16% return. Over the past 10 years, IWF has outperformed VV with an annualized return of 18.47%, while VV has yielded a comparatively lower 15.57% annualized return.


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%

VV

1D
0.42%
1M
4.83%
YTD
11.16%
6M
10.98%
1Y
28.29%
3Y*
22.94%
5Y*
13.64%
10Y*
15.57%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWF vs. VV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
7.28%18.33%33.12%42.59%-29.31%27.43%38.25%35.86%-1.67%29.95%
VV
Vanguard Large-Cap ETF
11.16%18.11%25.25%27.18%-19.91%27.41%21.04%31.25%-4.46%22.00%

Correlation

The correlation between IWF and VV is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.94

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.94

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.96

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2004

0.95

The correlation between IWF and VV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWF vs. VV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IWF
VV

Technology

53.2%
35.9%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
9.8%

Communication Services

12.3%
11.2%

Healthcare

7.0%
8.6%

Industrials

5.0%
8.0%

Financial Services

4.9%
11.8%

Consumer Defensive

2.5%
4.8%

Utilities

1.1%
2.7%

Real Estate

0.4%
1.7%

Energy

0.4%
3.6%

Basic Materials

0.3%
1.6%

Technology

IWF
53.2%
VV
35.9%

Consumer Cyclical

IWF
12.7%
VV
9.8%

Communication Services

IWF
12.3%
VV
11.2%

Healthcare

IWF
7.0%
VV
8.6%

Industrials

IWF
5.0%
VV
8.0%

Financial Services

IWF
4.9%
VV
11.8%

Consumer Defensive

IWF
2.5%
VV
4.8%

Utilities

IWF
1.1%
VV
2.7%

Real Estate

IWF
0.4%
VV
1.7%

Energy

IWF
0.4%
VV
3.6%

Basic Materials

IWF
0.3%
VV
1.6%

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. VV — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWF
IWF Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank

VV
VV Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
VV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
VV Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
VV Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
VV Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
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. VV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) and Vanguard Large-Cap ETF (VV). 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.


IWFVVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.72

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.96

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.43

-0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.57

3.09

-1.52

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.24

14.11

-8.87

IWF vs. VV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWF Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is lower than the VV Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWF and VV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IWFVVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.65

2.37

-0.72

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.72

0.80

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.88

0.86

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.40

0.60

-0.20

Drawdowns

IWF vs. VV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWF drawdown since its inception was -64.25%, which is greater than VV's maximum drawdown of -54.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWF and VV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IWFVVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.25%

-54.81%

-9.44%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.27%

-9.21%

-7.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.36%

-18.97%

-4.39%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.72%

-25.66%

-7.06%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.72%

-34.28%

+1.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.51%

-0.30%

-1.21%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.08%

-6.84%

-15.24%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.86%

2.01%

+2.85%

Volatility

IWF vs. VV - Volatility Comparison

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a higher volatility of 3.60% compared to Vanguard Large-Cap ETF (VV) at 2.79%. This indicates that IWF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IWFVVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.60%

2.79%

+0.81%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.65%

8.99%

+2.66%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.43%

11.99%

+3.44%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.39%

17.22%

+4.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.96%

18.19%

+2.77%

IWF vs. VV - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWF has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than VV's 0.04% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

IWF vs. VV - Dividend Comparison

IWF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, less than VV's 0.97% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
VV
Vanguard Large-Cap ETF
0.97%1.08%1.24%1.41%1.66%1.19%1.46%1.81%2.09%1.75%1.98%1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, IWF and VV move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

IWF has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to VV (2.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWF dropped -64.25% vs VV's -54.81%.

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 18.47% vs 15.57% for VV. On fees, VV is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, VV has been the lower-risk option at 2.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWF has performed better with a 18.47% return vs 15.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

VV is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IWF.

VV has the higher dividend yield at 0.97%, compared with 0.33% for IWF.

IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index, while VV tracks CRSP US Large Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IWF and 0.04% for VV.

VV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWF and VV

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