FLCG vs IWF
Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, FLCG or IWF?
FLCG has been ahead.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. FLCG led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. FLCG is less concentrated, with 56.5% 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 | FLCG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $687M | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.04% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 208 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +7.29%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +9.89%Best | +7.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +22.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.3%Best | 16.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -22.9%Best | -23.4% |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $14,083Best | $13,996 |
| Top 10 Weight | 56.5%Best | 57.4% |
| Fund Family | Federated Hermes | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jul 30, 2024 | May 22, 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).
FLCG 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
FLCG vs IWF Performance
Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF (FLCG) is an ETF from Federated Hermes and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FLCG returned +9.89% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, FLCG is up 7.29% versus a gain of 5.65% 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 16.1% compared with 15.3% for FLCG. 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 -22.9% for FLCG 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
FLCG charges 0.39% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $18 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLCG currently yields 0.04% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
92.0% of FLCG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 74.4% of IWF's money is in holdings FLCG also owns.
Most of FLCG is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
77 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in FLCG and 372 in IWF, against full books of 208 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 234 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for FLCG (25.3% of the fund), and 19 for FLCG that do not appear in IWF (7.5%).
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 FLCG | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.20% | 15.77% | 0.57% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 11.70% | 5.77% | 5.93% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.97% | 7.58% | 0.39% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.54% | 5.58% | 1.04% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.10% | 4.68% | 1.58% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.88% | 3.82% | 0.94% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.76% | 3.62% | 0.86% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.00% | 3.03% | 0.03% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.37% | 2.69% | 0.32% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.26% | 2.93% | 1.67% |
92.0% of FLCG 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, FLCG or IWF?
FLCG has an expense ratio of 0.39% while IWF charges 0.18%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLCG or IWF?
Over the past year FLCG returned +9.89% vs +7.28% for IWF, so FLCG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FLCG annualized +16.84% vs +16.51% for IWF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLCG or IWF?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 16.1% annualized versus 15.3% for FLCG. Worst drawdown: FLCG -22.9% vs IWF -23.4%.
Should I hold both FLCG and IWF?
FLCG 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 FLCG and IWF?
92.0% of FLCG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 74.4% of IWF's is in holdings FLCG also owns. They hold 77 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in FLCG and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLCG or IWF?
FLCG yields 0.04% while IWF yields 0.34%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than FLCG?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. FLCG led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. FLCG is less concentrated, with 56.5% 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.