IWB vs JHML
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF
Which is better, IWB or JHML?
Nearly the same fund. IWB costs less.
IWB has a lower expense ratio. IWB led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, JHML over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. JHML is less concentrated, with 25.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.0%.
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 | IWB | JHML |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.29% |
| AUM | $49.5B | $1.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.92% | 0.96% |
| Holdings | 1,023 | 780 |
| YTD Return | +12.91% | +12.96%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.56% | +17.02%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.96%Best | +20.26% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.34%Best | +11.29% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.3%Tie | 15.3%Tie |
| Max Drawdown | -34.6%Best | -36.1% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,893Best | $17,072 |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.0% | 25.2%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | John Hancock Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 28, 2015 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 30, 2015 to Oct 14, 2026 (11 years).
IWB vs JHML 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 11 years both funds cover.
IWB vs JHML Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF (JHML) is an ETF from John Hancock Investment Management. Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% while JHML returned +17.02%. Year to date, IWB is up 12.91% versus a gain of 12.96% for JHML.
Over three years, IWB compounded at +21.96% per year against +20.26% for JHML; over five years the annualized figures are +12.34% and +11.29% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, IWB has the edge at +13.91% annualized vs +13.09%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWB and JHML have been equally volatile, both at 15.3% annualized.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -34.6% for IWB and -36.1% for JHML. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWB charges 0.15% per year while JHML charges 0.29%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $29 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWB currently yields 0.92% against 0.96% for JHML.
Holdings Overlap
93.8% of IWB's money is in holdings JHML also owns. 95.6% of JHML's money is in holdings IWB also owns.
Most of JHML is already inside IWB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
720 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 773 in JHML, against full books of 1,023 and 780.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 40 positions for JHML that do not appear in our book for IWB (3.5% of the fund), and 204 for IWB that do not appear in JHML (5.3%).
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 IWB | Weight in JHML | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.63% | 4.22% | 3.41% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.77% | 4.29% | 2.48% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.40% | 3.67% | 1.73% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.41% | 2.98% | 0.43% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.79% | 2.57% | 0.22% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.26% | 2.03% | 0.23% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.26% | 1.70% | 0.56% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.75% | 1.51% | 0.24% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.26% | 0.81% | 1.45% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.42% | 1.04% | 0.38% |
95.6% of JHML 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, IWB or JHML?
IWB has an expense ratio of 0.15% while JHML charges 0.29%. IWB is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWB or JHML?
Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% vs +17.02% for JHML, so JHML leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), IWB annualized +13.91% vs +13.09% for JHML. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWB or JHML?
IWB and JHML have been equally volatile, both at 15.3% annualized. Worst drawdown: IWB -34.6% vs JHML -36.1%.
Should I hold both IWB and JHML?
IWB and JHML have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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 IWB and JHML?
95.6% of JHML's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 95.6% of JHML's is in holdings IWB also owns. They hold 720 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 773 in JHML.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or JHML?
IWB yields 0.92% while JHML yields 0.96%, so JHML currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is JHML better than IWB?
IWB has a lower expense ratio. IWB led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, JHML over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. JHML is less concentrated, with 25.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.