ABFL vs IWV
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF vs iShares Russell 3000 ETF
Which is better, ABFL or IWV?
Nearly the same fund. IWV costs less.
IWV has a lower expense ratio. IWV led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWV is less concentrated, with 34.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 35.0%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ABFL | IWV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.20%Best |
| AUM | $473M | $20.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.60% | 0.88% |
| Holdings | 58 | 5,163 |
| YTD Return | +11.62% | +12.89%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.48% | +16.39%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.92% | +21.75%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.39% | +11.91%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.8% | 15.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.0%Best | -35.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,393 | $17,553Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.0% | 34.6%Best |
| Fund Family | FCF Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 27, 2016 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2016 to Oct 14, 2026 (10 years).
ABFL vs IWV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 10 years both funds cover.
ABFL vs IWV Performance
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) is an ETF from FCF Advisors and iShares Russell 3000 ETF (IWV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year ABFL returned +12.48% while IWV returned +16.39%. Year to date, ABFL is up 11.62% versus a gain of 12.89% for IWV.
Over three years, ABFL compounded at +15.92% per year against +21.75% for IWV; over five years the annualized figures are +10.39% and +11.91% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, ABFL has the edge at +13.69% annualized vs +13.69%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ABFL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 15.7% for IWV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -35.0% for ABFL and -35.2% for IWV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ABFL charges 0.49% per year while IWV charges 0.20%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $20 annually, a gap of $29 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ABFL currently yields 0.60% against 0.88% for IWV.
Holdings Overlap
91.0% of ABFL's money is in holdings IWV also owns. 22.1% of IWV's money is in holdings ABFL also owns.
Most of ABFL is already inside IWV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
48 positions in common, counted across the 54 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 2,586 in IWV, against full books of 58 and 5,163.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,084 positions for IWV that do not appear in our book for ABFL (74.2% of the fund), and 4 for ABFL that do not appear in IWV (6.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ABFL | Weight in IWV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.30% | 7.33% | 2.03% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.55% | 6.50% | 0.95% |
| GEVGe Vernova, Inc. | 4.03% | 0.36% | 3.67% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.99% | 1.25% | 1.74% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.98% | 0.63% | 2.35% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 3.00% | 0.58% | 2.42% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 2.57% | 0.60% | 1.97% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 2.70% | 0.44% | 2.26% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc. | 2.78% | 0.29% | 2.49% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 2.70% | 0.36% | 2.34% |
91.0% of ABFL is already inside IWV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ABFL or IWV?
ABFL has an expense ratio of 0.49% while IWV charges 0.20%. IWV is the cheaper option, by $29 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ABFL or IWV?
Over the past year ABFL returned +12.48% vs +16.39% for IWV, so IWV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), ABFL annualized +13.69% vs +13.69% for IWV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ABFL or IWV?
ABFL has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 15.7% for IWV. Worst drawdown: ABFL -35.0% vs IWV -35.2%.
Should I hold both ABFL and IWV?
ABFL and IWV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ABFL and IWV?
91.0% of ABFL's money is in holdings IWV also owns. 22.1% of IWV's is in holdings ABFL also owns. They hold 48 positions in common, counted across the 54 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 2,586 in IWV.
Which pays a higher dividend, ABFL or IWV?
ABFL yields 0.60% while IWV yields 0.88%, so IWV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWV better than ABFL?
IWV has a lower expense ratio. IWV led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWV is less concentrated, with 34.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 35.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.