IWB vs JQUA
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs JPMorgan US Quality Factor ETF
Which is better, IWB or JQUA?
Nearly the same fund. JQUA costs less.
JQUA has a lower expense ratio. IWB led over 3Y, JQUA over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. JQUA is less concentrated, with 19.8% 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 | JQUA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.12%Best |
| AUM | $49.5B | $9.3B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.92% | 1.08% |
| Holdings | 1,023 | 624 |
| YTD Return | +12.91% | +19.98%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.56% | +21.86%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.96%Best | +20.91% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.34% | +13.77%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.4% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -34.6% | -32.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,893 | $19,061Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.0% | 19.8%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Nov 8, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 9, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (8.9 years).
IWB vs JQUA 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 8.9 years both funds cover.
IWB vs JQUA Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and JPMorgan US Quality Factor ETF (JQUA) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% while JQUA returned +21.86%. Year to date, IWB is up 12.91% versus a gain of 19.98% for JQUA.
Over three years, IWB compounded at +21.96% per year against +20.91% for JQUA; over five years the annualized figures are +12.34% and +13.77% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, JQUA has the edge at +14.13% annualized vs +13.66%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.4% compared with 15.3% for JQUA. 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 -34.6% for IWB and -32.9% for JQUA. 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
IWB charges 0.15% per year while JQUA charges 0.12%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $12 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWB currently yields 0.92% against 1.08% for JQUA.
Holdings Overlap
56.8% of IWB's money is in holdings JQUA also owns. 94.9% of JQUA's money is in holdings IWB also owns.
Most of JQUA is already inside IWB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
292 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 306 in JQUA, against full books of 1,023 and 624.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for JQUA that do not appear in our book for IWB (3.4% of the fund), and 629 for IWB that do not appear in JQUA (42.3%).
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 JQUA | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.63% | 2.00% | 5.63% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.77% | 2.06% | 4.71% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.40% | 2.05% | 3.35% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.79% | 1.80% | 0.99% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.26% | 2.10% | 0.16% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.26% | 1.92% | 0.34% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.75% | 2.16% | 0.41% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.42% | 2.26% | 0.84% |
| XOMExxonmobil Corp. | 0.96% | 1.78% | 0.82% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 0.86% | 1.69% | 0.83% |
94.9% of JQUA 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 JQUA?
IWB has an expense ratio of 0.15% while JQUA charges 0.12%. JQUA is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWB or JQUA?
Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% vs +21.86% for JQUA, so JQUA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), IWB annualized +13.66% vs +14.13% for JQUA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWB or JQUA?
IWB has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 15.3% for JQUA. Worst drawdown: IWB -34.6% vs JQUA -32.9%.
Should I hold both IWB and JQUA?
IWB and JQUA 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 IWB and JQUA?
94.9% of JQUA's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 94.9% of JQUA's is in holdings IWB also owns. They hold 292 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 306 in JQUA.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or JQUA?
IWB yields 0.92% while JQUA yields 1.08%, so JQUA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is JQUA better than IWB?
JQUA has a lower expense ratio. IWB led over 3Y, JQUA over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. JQUA is less concentrated, with 19.8% 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.