SMH vs. IWF
SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF) and IWF (iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SMH is a Semiconductors fund tracking the MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 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, SMH returned 37.49%/yr vs 18.17%/yr for IWF. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SMH charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for IWF.
Performance
SMH vs. IWF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SMH achieves a 72.15% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's 2.87% return. Over the past 10 years, SMH has outperformed IWF with an annualized return of 37.49%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively lower 18.17% annualized return.
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
- 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 vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 72.15% | 49.17% | 39.10% | 73.38% | -33.53% | 42.13% | 55.53% | 64.45% | -9.05% | 38.48% |
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% |
Correlation
The correlation between SMH and IWF 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 SMH and IWF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.
SMH vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
SMH
IWF
Technology
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Technology
SMH
IWF
Basic Materials
SMH
-
IWF
Communication Services
SMH
-
IWF
Consumer Cyclical
SMH
-
IWF
Consumer Defensive
SMH
-
IWF
Energy
SMH
-
IWF
Financial Services
SMH
-
IWF
Healthcare
SMH
-
IWF
Industrials
SMH
-
IWF
Real Estate
SMH
-
IWF
Utilities
SMH
-
IWF
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
SMH vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank
SMH
IWF
SMH vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) 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.
| SMH | IWF | 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 | 1.60 | 1.21 | +0.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 9.18 | 1.16 | +8.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 33.74 | 3.83 | +29.90 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
SMH vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SMH drawdown since its inception was -84.96%, which is greater than IWF's maximum drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMH and IWF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SMH | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -84.96% | -64.25% | -20.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.93% | -16.27% | +1.34% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.74% | -23.36% | -12.38% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.30% | -32.72% | -12.58% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.30% | -32.72% | -12.58% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.81% | -5.56% | +2.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -41.04% | -22.06% | -18.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.06% | 4.93% | -0.87% |
Volatility
SMH vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) has a higher volatility of 16.25% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) at 5.36%. This indicates that SMH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SMH | IWF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 16.25% | 5.36% | +10.89% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.73% | 12.40% | +15.33% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 33.20% | 15.95% | +17.25% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.47% | 21.46% | +14.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 32.82% | 21.00% | +11.82% |
SMH vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison
SMH has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than IWF's 0.18% expense ratio.
Dividends
SMH vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison
SMH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.18%, less 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% |
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
SMH and IWF 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, SMH dropped -84.96% vs IWF's -64.25%.
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.
SMH is categorized as Semiconductors, while IWF is Large Cap Growth Equities. SMH tracks MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index, while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for SMH and 0.18% for IWF.
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 SMH and IWF
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