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

Performance

VTWG vs. IWF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF (VTWG) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, VTWG achieves a 17.46% return, which is significantly higher than IWF's 2.33% return. Over the past 10 years, VTWG has underperformed IWF with an annualized return of 10.77%, while IWF has yielded a comparatively higher 17.44% annualized return.


VTWG

1D
2.10%
1M
-2.12%
6M
11.88%
YTD
17.46%
1Y
33.76%
3Y*
16.31%
5Y*
5.73%
10Y*
10.77%
ALL TIME*
11.91%

IWF

1D
2.16%
1M
-0.24%
6M
3.60%
YTD
2.33%
1Y
12.35%
3Y*
21.10%
5Y*
12.02%
10Y*
17.44%
ALL TIME*
8.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$458.24M$549.09M$635.49M
$5.94M$5.47M$5.78M

VTWG vs. IWF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
VTWG
Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF
17.46%13.07%15.15%18.90%-26.49%2.84%34.72%28.75%-9.45%22.27%
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
2.33%18.33%33.12%42.59%-29.31%27.43%38.25%35.86%-1.67%29.95%

Correlation

The correlation between VTWG and IWF is 0.70, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.70

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.69

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.77

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.76

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2010

0.79

The correlation between VTWG and IWF shifts across timeframes, from 0.69 (3 years) to 0.79 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

VTWG vs. IWF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
VTWG
IWF

Healthcare

28.8%
5.4%

Technology

22.1%
54.2%

Industrials

15.9%
9.0%

Consumer Cyclical

8.1%
8.3%

Financial Services

8.1%
4.3%

Basic Materials

5.0%
0.3%

Energy

4.8%
0.5%

Real Estate

2.5%
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.3%
1.2%

Communication Services

1.9%
16.2%

Utilities

0.6%
0.3%

Healthcare

VTWG
28.8%
IWF
5.4%

Technology

VTWG
22.1%
IWF
54.2%

Industrials

VTWG
15.9%
IWF
9.0%

Consumer Cyclical

VTWG
8.1%
IWF
8.3%

Financial Services

VTWG
8.1%
IWF
4.3%

Basic Materials

VTWG
5.0%
IWF
0.3%

Energy

VTWG
4.8%
IWF
0.5%

Real Estate

VTWG
2.5%
IWF
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

VTWG
2.3%
IWF
1.2%

Communication Services

VTWG
1.9%
IWF
16.2%

Utilities

VTWG
0.6%
IWF
0.3%

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

VTWG vs. IWF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

VTWG
VTWG Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
VTWG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VTWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
VTWG Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
VTWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
VTWG Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

IWF
IWF Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
IWF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWF Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWF Omega Ratio Rank: 2828
Omega Ratio Rank
IWF Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWF Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

VTWG vs. IWF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF (VTWG) 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.


VTWGIWFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.79

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.13

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.28

0.76

+1.52

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.86

2.27

+5.60

VTWG vs. IWF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VTWG Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is higher than the IWF Sharpe Ratio of 0.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VTWG 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

VTWG vs. IWF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VTWG drawdown since its inception was -42.07%, smaller than the maximum IWF drawdown of -64.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VTWG and IWF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


VTWGIWFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.07%

-64.25%

+22.18%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.88%

-16.27%

+1.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.58%

-23.36%

-5.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.49%

-32.72%

-7.77%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.07%

-32.72%

-9.35%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.93%

-6.05%

+2.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.45%

-21.98%

+11.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.30%

5.46%

-1.16%

Volatility

VTWG vs. IWF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF (VTWG) is 6.26%, while iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) has a volatility of 6.73%. This indicates that VTWG 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


VTWGIWFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.26%

6.73%

-0.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.30%

14.19%

+3.11%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.62%

17.54%

+5.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.67%

21.73%

+2.94%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.28%

21.12%

+3.16%

VTWG vs. IWF - Expense Ratio Comparison

VTWG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than IWF's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

VTWG vs. IWF - Dividend Comparison

VTWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, more than IWF's 0.36% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
0.36%0.36%0.46%0.67%0.91%0.49%0.66%0.99%1.27%1.10%1.43%1.37%
VTWG
Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF
0.60%0.64%0.55%0.79%0.71%0.54%0.48%0.72%0.72%0.64%0.96%0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions


VTWG and IWF have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWF has higher volatility (6.73%) compared to VTWG (6.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, VTWG dropped -42.07% vs IWF's -64.25%.

On 10-year performance, IWF leads with 17.44% vs 10.77% for VTWG. On fees, VTWG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, VTWG has been the lower-risk option at 6.26%. 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 17.44% return vs 10.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

VTWG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for IWF.

VTWG has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.36% for IWF.

VTWG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while IWF is Large Cap Growth Equities. VTWG tracks Russell 2000 Growth Index, while IWF tracks Russell 1000 Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for VTWG and 0.18% for IWF.

VTWG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.50 vs 0.71), 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 VTWG 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