CAML vs IWF
Congress Large Cap Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, CAML or IWF?
IWF has been ahead.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. CAML is less concentrated, with 45.7% 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 | CAML | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.65% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $394M | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 39 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +6.09%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +5.81% | +7.28%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.98% | +22.37%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.6%Best | 16.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -21.1%Best | -23.4% |
| $10,000 over 3.1 years | $16,123 | $18,443Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 45.7%Best | 57.4% |
| Fund Family | Congress Asset Management Company | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Aug 22, 2023 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 22, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.1 years).
CAML 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 3.1 years both funds cover.
CAML vs IWF Performance
Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) is an ETF from Congress Asset Management Company and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CAML returned +5.81% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, CAML is up 6.09% versus a gain of 5.65% for IWF.
Over three years, CAML compounded at +16.98% per year against +22.37% for IWF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.4% compared with 14.6% for CAML. 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 -21.1% for CAML and -23.4% 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 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CAML charges 0.65% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $65 vs $18 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CAML currently yields 0.00% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
77.9% of CAML's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 61.1% of IWF's money is in holdings CAML also owns.
Most of CAML is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
27 positions in common, counted across the 38 positions we hold weights for in CAML and 372 in IWF, against full books of 39 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 275 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for CAML (38.5% of the fund), and 7 for CAML that do not appear in IWF (13.8%).
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 CAML | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.44% | 15.77% | 7.33% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.20% | 7.58% | 1.38% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.03% | 5.58% | 0.45% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.48% | 5.77% | 0.29% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.22% | 4.68% | 0.46% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.10% | 3.82% | 0.72% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.41% | 3.62% | 1.21% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.83% | 2.69% | 0.86% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 2.57% | 1.79% | 0.78% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.32% | 3.03% | 1.71% |
77.9% of CAML 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, CAML or IWF?
CAML has an expense ratio of 0.65% while IWF charges 0.18%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CAML or IWF?
Over the past year CAML returned +5.81% vs +7.28% for IWF, so IWF leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CAML or IWF?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 14.6% for CAML. Worst drawdown: CAML -21.1% vs IWF -23.4%.
Should I hold both CAML and IWF?
CAML and IWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, 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 CAML and IWF?
77.9% of CAML's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 61.1% of IWF's is in holdings CAML also owns. They hold 27 positions in common, counted across the 38 positions we hold weights for in CAML and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, CAML or IWF?
CAML yields 0.00% while IWF yields 0.34%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than CAML?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. CAML is less concentrated, with 45.7% 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.