FLCC vs IWB
Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Which is better, FLCC or IWB?
Nearly the same fund. IWB costs less.
IWB has a lower expense ratio. FLCC led over the full window, IWB over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWB is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%.
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 | FLCC | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.15%Best |
| AUM | $179M | $49.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.45% | 0.92% |
| Holdings | 304 | 1,023 |
| YTD Return | +12.79% | +12.91%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.11% | +16.56%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.96% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.34% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.4% | 12.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -19.2% | -19.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $14,419Best | $14,235 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.9% | 36.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Federated Hermes | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 30, 2024 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 31, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.2 years).
FLCC vs IWB 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
FLCC vs IWB Performance
Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) is an ETF from Federated Hermes and iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FLCC returned +16.11% while IWB returned +16.56%. Year to date, FLCC is up 12.79% versus a gain of 12.91% for IWB.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FLCC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.4% compared with 12.0% for IWB. 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 -19.2% for FLCC and -19.1% for IWB. 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
FLCC charges 0.29% per year while IWB charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $29 vs $15 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLCC currently yields 0.45% against 0.92% for IWB.
Holdings Overlap
93.3% of FLCC's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 57.4% of IWB's money is in holdings FLCC also owns.
Most of FLCC is already inside IWB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
144 positions in common, counted across the 155 positions we hold weights for in FLCC and 1,024 in IWB, against full books of 304 and 1,023.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 770 positions for IWB that do not appear in our book for FLCC (41.6% of the fund), and 10 for FLCC that do not appear in IWB (6.2%).
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 FLCC | Weight in IWB | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.62% | 7.63% | 0.99% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.81% | 6.77% | 0.04% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.21% | 5.40% | 1.19% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.88% | 2.79% | 3.09% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.20% | 3.41% | 0.21% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.21% | 2.26% | 0.05% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.23% | 2.26% | 1.03% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.44% | 1.75% | 0.31% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.18% | 0.65% | 1.53% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.10% | 1.30% | 0.20% |
93.3% of FLCC is already inside IWB.
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, FLCC or IWB?
FLCC has an expense ratio of 0.29% while IWB charges 0.15%. IWB is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLCC or IWB?
Over the past year FLCC returned +16.11% vs +16.56% for IWB, so IWB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FLCC annualized +18.10% vs +17.41% for IWB. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLCC or IWB?
FLCC has been the more volatile fund at 12.4% annualized versus 12.0% for IWB. Worst drawdown: FLCC -19.2% vs IWB -19.1%.
Should I hold both FLCC and IWB?
FLCC and IWB 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 FLCC and IWB?
93.3% of FLCC's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 57.4% of IWB's is in holdings FLCC also owns. They hold 144 positions in common, counted across the 155 positions we hold weights for in FLCC and 1,024 in IWB.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLCC or IWB?
FLCC yields 0.45% while IWB yields 0.92%, so IWB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWB better than FLCC?
IWB has a lower expense ratio. FLCC led over the full window, IWB over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWB is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.