HQGO vs IWF
Hartford US Quality Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, HQGO or IWF?
Each has led over a different period.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. HQGO led over 1Y, IWF over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. HQGO is less concentrated, with 38.1% 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 | HQGO | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.34% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $3M | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.51% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 192 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +12.84%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +15.94%Best | +7.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +22.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.6%Best | 15.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -20.9%Best | -23.4% |
| $10,000 over 2.9 years | $17,373 | $17,582Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.1%Best | 57.4% |
| Fund Family | Hartford Funds | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Dec 5, 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: Dec 6, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.9 years).
HQGO 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.
HQGO vs IWF Performance
Hartford US Quality Growth ETF (HQGO) 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 HQGO returned +15.94% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, HQGO is up 12.84% 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 15.7% compared with 12.6% for HQGO. 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 -20.9% for HQGO 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 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
HQGO charges 0.34% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $34 vs $18 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, HQGO currently yields 0.51% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
73.0% of HQGO's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 77.8% of IWF's money is in holdings HQGO also owns.
Most of IWF is already inside HQGO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
110 positions in common, counted across the 190 positions we hold weights for in HQGO and 372 in IWF, against full books of 192 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 199 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for HQGO (21.8% of the fund), and 78 for HQGO that do not appear in IWF (26.8%).
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 HQGO | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.49% | 15.77% | 10.28% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.37% | 7.58% | 2.21% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.82% | 5.77% | 0.95% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.71% | 5.58% | 0.87% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.36% | 4.68% | 1.32% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.11% | 3.82% | 0.71% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.27% | 3.62% | 1.35% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.59% | 2.93% | 0.34% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.01% | 3.03% | 1.02% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.33% | 0.59% | 3.74% |
77.8% of IWF is already inside HQGO.
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, HQGO or IWF?
HQGO has an expense ratio of 0.34% while IWF charges 0.18%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, HQGO or IWF?
Over the past year HQGO returned +15.94% vs +7.28% for IWF, so HQGO leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, HQGO or IWF?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 15.7% annualized versus 12.6% for HQGO. Worst drawdown: HQGO -20.9% vs IWF -23.4%.
Should I hold both HQGO and IWF?
HQGO and IWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 HQGO and IWF?
77.8% of IWF's money is in holdings HQGO also owns. 77.8% of IWF's is in holdings HQGO also owns. They hold 110 positions in common, counted across the 190 positions we hold weights for in HQGO and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, HQGO or IWF?
HQGO yields 0.51% while IWF yields 0.34%, so HQGO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than HQGO?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. HQGO led over 1Y, IWF over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. HQGO is less concentrated, with 38.1% 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.