FLQL vs IWV
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF vs iShares Russell 3000 ETF
Which is better, FLQL or IWV?
Nearly the same fund. FLQL costs less.
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IWV is less concentrated, with 34.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.2%.
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 | FLQL | IWV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.20% |
| AUM | $2.2B | $20.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.88% |
| Holdings | 219 | 5,163 |
| YTD Return | +12.74% | +12.89%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.39%Tie | +16.39%Tie |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.41%Best | +21.75% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.06%Best | +11.91% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0%Best | 16.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.6%Best | -35.2% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,305Best | $17,553 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.2% | 34.6%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 26, 2017 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 28, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9.5 years).
FLQL vs IWV 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 9.5 years both funds cover.
FLQL vs IWV Performance
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Russell 3000 ETF (IWV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FLQL returned +16.39% while IWV returned +16.39%. Year to date, FLQL is up 12.74% versus a gain of 12.89% for IWV.
Over three years, FLQL compounded at +22.41% per year against +21.75% for IWV; over five years the annualized figures are +14.06% and +11.91% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FLQL has the edge at +14.42% annualized vs +13.44%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.1% compared with 15.0% for FLQL. 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 -33.6% for FLQL and -35.2% for IWV. 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
FLQL charges 0.15% per year while IWV charges 0.20%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $20 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLQL currently yields 1.06% against 0.88% for IWV.
Holdings Overlap
98.2% of FLQL's money is in holdings IWV also owns. 54.2% of IWV's money is in holdings FLQL also owns.
Most of FLQL is already inside IWV. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
213 positions in common, counted across the 217 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 2,586 in IWV, against full books of 219 and 5,163.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 931 positions for IWV that do not appear in our book for FLQL (42.2% of the fund), and 3 for FLQL that do not appear in IWV (1.6%).
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 FLQL | Weight in IWV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.46% | 7.33% | 0.13% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.72% | 6.50% | 1.22% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.26% | 5.18% | 0.08% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.23% | 3.28% | 0.05% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.30% | 2.68% | 0.62% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.65% | 2.17% | 0.48% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.14% | 2.17% | 0.03% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.06% | 2.17% | 0.11% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.44% | 1.68% | 0.24% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.21% | 1.36% | 0.15% |
98.2% of FLQL is already inside IWV.
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, FLQL or IWV?
FLQL has an expense ratio of 0.15% while IWV charges 0.20%. FLQL is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLQL or IWV?
Over the past year FLQL returned +16.39% vs +16.39% for IWV, so IWV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), FLQL annualized +14.42% vs +13.44% for IWV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLQL or IWV?
IWV has been the more volatile fund at 16.1% annualized versus 15.0% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: FLQL -33.6% vs IWV -35.2%.
Should I hold both FLQL and IWV?
FLQL and IWV 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 FLQL and IWV?
98.2% of FLQL's money is in holdings IWV also owns. 54.2% of IWV's is in holdings FLQL also owns. They hold 213 positions in common, counted across the 217 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 2,586 in IWV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLQL or IWV?
FLQL yields 1.06% while IWV yields 0.88%, so FLQL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWV better than FLQL?
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IWV is less concentrated, with 34.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.