AGRW vs IWFG
Allspring LT Large Growth ETF vs NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, AGRW or IWFG?
Nearly the same fund. AGRW costs less.
AGRW has a lower expense ratio. AGRW led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. AGRW is less concentrated, with 53.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%.
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 | AGRW | IWFG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35%Best | 0.46% |
| AUM | $118M | $27M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.11% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 51 | 58 |
| YTD Return | +9.38%Best | +3.74% |
| 1Y Return | +10.78%Best | +3.78% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +22.23% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.3%Best | 16.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -16.5%Best | -20.2% |
| $10,000 over 1.5 years | $13,295Best | $12,434 |
| Top 10 Weight | 53.5%Best | 64.2% |
| Fund Family | Allspring Global Investments | New York Life Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Mar 26, 2025 | Jun 22, 2022 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 27, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.5 years).
AGRW vs IWFG 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 1.5 years both funds cover.
AGRW vs IWFG Performance
Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) is an ETF from Allspring Global Investments and NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is an ETF from New York Life Investments. Over the past year AGRW returned +10.78% while IWFG returned +3.78%. Year to date, AGRW is up 9.38% versus a gain of 3.74% for IWFG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.7% compared with 16.3% for AGRW. 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 -16.5% for AGRW and -20.2% for IWFG. 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
AGRW charges 0.35% per year while IWFG charges 0.46%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $46 annually, a gap of $11 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AGRW currently yields 0.11% against 0.00% for IWFG.
Holdings Overlap
57.6% of AGRW's money is in holdings IWFG also owns. 70.0% of IWFG's money is in holdings AGRW also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
14 positions in common, counted across the 47 positions we hold weights for in AGRW and 27 in IWFG, against full books of 51 and 58.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 12 positions for IWFG that do not appear in our book for AGRW (27.4% of the fund), and 31 for AGRW that do not appear in IWFG (39.6%).
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 AGRW | Weight in IWFG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.57% | 14.99% | 0.58% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 8.42% | 11.19% | 2.77% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.18% | 6.57% | 2.39% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.95% | 6.24% | 2.29% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.53% | 5.46% | 0.93% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.28% | 4.47% | 0.19% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.29% | 3.71% | 0.58% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc | 2.63% | 3.58% | 0.95% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 2.36% | 2.97% | 0.61% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.15% | 2.96% | 0.81% |
70.0% of IWFG is already inside AGRW.
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, AGRW or IWFG?
AGRW has an expense ratio of 0.35% while IWFG charges 0.46%. AGRW is the cheaper option, by $11 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AGRW or IWFG?
Over the past year AGRW returned +10.78% vs +3.78% for IWFG, so AGRW leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), AGRW annualized +20.91% vs +15.63% for IWFG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AGRW or IWFG?
IWFG has been the more volatile fund at 16.7% annualized versus 16.3% for AGRW. Worst drawdown: AGRW -16.5% vs IWFG -20.2%.
Should I hold both AGRW and IWFG?
AGRW and IWFG 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 AGRW and IWFG?
70.0% of IWFG's money is in holdings AGRW also owns. 70.0% of IWFG's is in holdings AGRW also owns. They hold 14 positions in common, counted across the 47 positions we hold weights for in AGRW and 27 in IWFG.
Which pays a higher dividend, AGRW or IWFG?
AGRW yields 0.11% while IWFG yields 0.00%, so AGRW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWFG better than AGRW?
AGRW has a lower expense ratio. AGRW led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. AGRW is less concentrated, with 53.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.