FELG vs IWF
Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, FELG or IWF?
Each has led over a different period.
FELG led over 1Y and the full window, IWF over 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.3%.
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 | FELG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Tie | 0.18%Tie |
| AUM | $5.8B | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.35% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 135 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +7.63%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +10.39%Best | +7.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.35% | +22.37%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.6% | 15.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -23.9% | -23.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.9 years | $17,949Best | $17,335 |
| Top 10 Weight | 58.3% | 57.4%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Nov 20, 2023 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 20, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.9 years).
FELG 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 2.9 years both funds cover.
FELG vs IWF Performance
Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Growth ETF (FELG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FELG returned +10.39% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, FELG is up 7.63% versus a gain of 5.65% for IWF.
Over three years, FELG compounded at +22.35% per year against +22.37% for IWF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FELG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.6% compared with 15.5% 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 -23.9% for FELG 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 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FELG charges 0.18% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $18 annually. On income, FELG currently yields 0.35% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
92.6% of FELG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 86.4% of IWF's money is in holdings FELG also owns.
Most of FELG is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
90 positions in common, counted across the 127 positions we hold weights for in FELG and 372 in IWF, against full books of 135 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 217 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for FELG (13.2% of the fund), and 32 for FELG that do not appear in IWF (7.2%).
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 FELG | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corporation | 16.24% | 15.77% | 0.47% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 8.01% | 7.58% | 0.43% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc Cl A | 7.46% | 5.77% | 1.69% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.00% | 5.58% | 0.58% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.05% | 4.68% | 0.37% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc Cl C | 2.99% | 4.66% | 1.67% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc . | 4.02% | 3.62% | 0.40% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc Class A | 3.81% | 3.82% | 0.01% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 3.11% | 2.69% | 0.42% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.63% | 3.03% | 0.40% |
92.6% of FELG 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, FELG or IWF?
FELG has an expense ratio of 0.18% while IWF charges 0.18%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, FELG or IWF?
Over the past year FELG returned +10.39% vs +7.28% for IWF, so FELG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FELG or IWF?
FELG has been the more volatile fund at 15.6% annualized versus 15.5% for IWF. Worst drawdown: FELG -23.9% vs IWF -23.4%.
Should I hold both FELG and IWF?
FELG 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 FELG and IWF?
92.6% of FELG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 86.4% of IWF's is in holdings FELG also owns. They hold 90 positions in common, counted across the 127 positions we hold weights for in FELG and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, FELG or IWF?
FELG yields 0.35% while IWF yields 0.34%, so FELG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than FELG?
FELG led over 1Y and the full window, IWF over 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.