FFOG vs IWF
Franklin Focused Dynamic Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, FFOG or IWF?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. FFOG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. FFOG is less concentrated, with 55.5% 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 | FFOG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.41% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $386M | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 43 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +8.34%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +7.46%Best | +7.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.71%Best | +22.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.1% | 15.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -25.4% | -23.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.9 years | $19,417Best | $18,176 |
| Top 10 Weight | 55.5%Best | 57.4% |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Nov 6, 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 6, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.9 years).
FFOG 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.
FFOG vs IWF Performance
Franklin Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FFOG) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FFOG returned +7.46% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, FFOG is up 8.34% versus a gain of 5.65% for IWF.
Over three years, FFOG compounded at +25.71% per year against +22.37% for IWF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FFOG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.1% 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 -25.4% for FFOG 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 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFOG charges 0.41% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $41 vs $18 annually, a gap of $23 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFOG currently yields 0.00% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
78.3% of FFOG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 61.3% of IWF's money is in holdings FFOG also owns.
Most of FFOG is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
29 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in FFOG and 372 in IWF, against full books of 43 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 274 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for FFOG (38.3% of the fund), and 4 for FFOG that do not appear in IWF (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 FFOG | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 10.05% | 15.77% | 5.72% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 7.96% | 5.77% | 2.19% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.50% | 7.58% | 2.08% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.90% | 5.58% | 1.68% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 8.49% | 0.59% | 7.90% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.98% | 3.82% | 1.16% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.45% | 4.68% | 1.23% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.79% | 2.93% | 0.14% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.01% | 2.69% | 0.68% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.33% | 3.03% | 1.70% |
78.3% of FFOG 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, FFOG or IWF?
FFOG has an expense ratio of 0.41% while IWF charges 0.18%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $23 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFOG or IWF?
Over the past year FFOG returned +7.46% vs +7.28% for IWF, so FFOG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFOG or IWF?
FFOG has been the more volatile fund at 20.1% annualized versus 15.5% for IWF. Worst drawdown: FFOG -25.4% vs IWF -23.4%.
Should I hold both FFOG and IWF?
FFOG and IWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 FFOG and IWF?
78.3% of FFOG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 61.3% of IWF's is in holdings FFOG also owns. They hold 29 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in FFOG and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFOG or IWF?
FFOG yields 0.00% while IWF yields 0.34%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than FFOG?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. FFOG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. FFOG is less concentrated, with 55.5% 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.