HFGO vs IWF
Hartford Large Cap Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, HFGO or IWF?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. HFGO led over 1Y and 3Y, IWF over 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 61.2%.
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 | HFGO | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.59% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $186M | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 48 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +8.71%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +10.28%Best | +7.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.71%Best | +22.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.72% | +12.59%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.2% | 19.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -44.6% | -32.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,190 | $18,093Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 61.2% | 57.4%Best |
| Fund Family | Hartford Funds | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Nov 9, 2021 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 10, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (4.9 years).
HFGO 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 4.9 years both funds cover.
HFGO vs IWF Performance
Hartford Large Cap Growth ETF (HFGO) is an ETF from Hartford Funds and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year HFGO returned +10.28% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, HFGO is up 8.71% versus a gain of 5.65% for IWF.
Over three years, HFGO compounded at +25.71% per year against +22.37% for IWF; over five years the annualized figures are +8.72% and +12.59% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
HFGO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.2% compared with 19.1% 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 -44.6% for HFGO and -32.7% 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 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
HFGO charges 0.59% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $59 vs $18 annually, a gap of $41 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, HFGO currently yields 0.00% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
83.3% of HFGO's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 63.5% of IWF's money is in holdings HFGO also owns.
Most of HFGO is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
34 positions in common, counted across the 46 positions we hold weights for in HFGO and 372 in IWF, against full books of 48 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 270 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for HFGO (36.0% of the fund), and 7 for HFGO that do not appear in IWF (9.0%).
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 HFGO | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 16.55% | 15.77% | 0.78% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 9.88% | 5.77% | 4.11% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.81% | 7.58% | 2.77% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.33% | 5.58% | 0.25% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.41% | 4.68% | 0.73% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.54% | 3.82% | 0.72% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 3.82% | 2.69% | 1.13% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 1.01% | 4.66% | 3.65% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.50% | 0.59% | 3.91% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.54% | 3.03% | 1.49% |
83.3% of HFGO 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, HFGO or IWF?
HFGO has an expense ratio of 0.59% while IWF charges 0.18%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $41 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, HFGO or IWF?
Over the past year HFGO returned +10.28% vs +7.28% for IWF, so HFGO leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, HFGO or IWF?
HFGO has been the more volatile fund at 22.2% annualized versus 19.1% for IWF. Worst drawdown: HFGO -44.6% vs IWF -32.7%.
Should I hold both HFGO and IWF?
HFGO and IWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 HFGO and IWF?
83.3% of HFGO's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 63.5% of IWF's is in holdings HFGO also owns. They hold 34 positions in common, counted across the 46 positions we hold weights for in HFGO and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, HFGO or IWF?
HFGO yields 0.00% while IWF yields 0.34%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than HFGO?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. HFGO led over 1Y and 3Y, IWF over 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 61.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.