MOAT vs. IWF

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

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

Performance

MOAT vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) 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, MOAT achieves a -1.06% return, which is significantly lower than IWF's 2.83% return. Over the past 10 years, MOAT has underperformed IWF with an annualized return of 13.35%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively higher 18.15% annualized return.

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%

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%

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

MOAT vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
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%

Correlation

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

MOAT vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

MOAT vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

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

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.

MOAT vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) 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.

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.

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

MOAT vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MOAT Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is comparable to the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 1.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MOAT 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.

Drawdowns

MOAT vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

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

Volatility

MOAT vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) is 4.16%, while iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a volatility of 5.43%. This indicates that MOAT 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

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

MOAT vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MOAT vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

MOAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, more than IWF's 0.35% 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 MOAT and IWF in my portfolio?

MOAT and IWF 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, MOAT or IWF?

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

Which ETF is better, MOAT or IWF?

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, MOAT or IWF?

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, MOAT or IWF?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between MOAT and IWF?

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

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.