ACGR vs IWF
American Century Large Cap Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, ACGR or IWF?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. ACGR led over 1Y, IWF over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. ACGR is less concentrated, with 52.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.4%.
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 | ACGR | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $11M | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.10% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 94 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +7.66%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +9.05%Best | +7.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.56% | +22.37%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.15% | +12.59%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.2% | 19.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -34.5% | -32.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,965 | $18,093Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 52.4%Best | 57.4% |
| Fund Family | American Century Investments | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 29, 2021 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 1, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.3 years).
ACGR vs IWF 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 5.3 years both funds cover.
ACGR vs IWF Performance
American Century Large Cap Growth ETF (ACGR) is an ETF from American Century Investments and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year ACGR returned +9.05% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, ACGR is up 7.66% versus a gain of 5.65% for IWF.
Over three years, ACGR compounded at +19.56% per year against +22.37% for IWF; over five years the annualized figures are +11.15% and +12.59% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACGR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.2% compared with 19.1% for IWF. 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 -34.5% for ACGR and -32.7% for IWF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACGR charges 0.39% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $18 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACGR currently yields 0.10% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
88.1% of ACGR's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 71.0% of IWF's money is in holdings ACGR also owns.
Most of ACGR is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
66 positions in common, counted across the 93 positions we hold weights for in ACGR and 372 in IWF, against full books of 94 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 236 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for ACGR (28.6% of the fund), and 21 for ACGR that do not appear in IWF (8.3%).
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 ACGR | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 13.38% | 15.77% | 2.39% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 11.90% | 5.77% | 6.13% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 3.61% | 7.58% | 3.97% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.90% | 5.58% | 0.68% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.72% | 4.68% | 1.04% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.04% | 3.82% | 1.78% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.97% | 2.69% | 0.28% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.46% | 3.03% | 0.57% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.90% | 3.62% | 2.72% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 3.14% | 1.30% | 1.84% |
88.1% of ACGR is already inside IWF.
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, ACGR or IWF?
ACGR has an expense ratio of 0.39% while IWF charges 0.18%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACGR or IWF?
Over the past year ACGR returned +9.05% vs +7.28% for IWF, so ACGR leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACGR or IWF?
ACGR has been the more volatile fund at 19.2% annualized versus 19.1% for IWF. Worst drawdown: ACGR -34.5% vs IWF -32.7%.
Should I hold both ACGR and IWF?
ACGR and IWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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 ACGR and IWF?
88.1% of ACGR's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 71.0% of IWF's is in holdings ACGR also owns. They hold 66 positions in common, counted across the 93 positions we hold weights for in ACGR and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACGR or IWF?
ACGR yields 0.10% while IWF yields 0.34%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than ACGR?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. ACGR led over 1Y, IWF over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. ACGR is less concentrated, with 52.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.