IWB vs JUST
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs Goldman Sachs JUST US Large Cap Equity ETF
Which is better, IWB or JUST?
Nearly the same fund. IWB costs less.
IWB has a lower expense ratio. JUST led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. IWB is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.9%.
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 | JUST |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.20% |
| AUM | $49.5B | $572M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.92% | 0.94% |
| Holdings | 1,023 | 461 |
| YTD Return | +12.91% | +14.35%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.56% | +18.75%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.96% | +22.22%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.34% | +12.57%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.8% | 16.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -34.6% | -33.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,893 | $18,076Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.0%Best | 41.9% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Goldman Sachs Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jun 7, 2018 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 13, 2018 to Oct 14, 2026 (8.3 years).
IWB vs JUST 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 8.3 years both funds cover.
IWB vs JUST Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Goldman Sachs JUST US Large Cap Equity ETF (JUST) is an ETF from Goldman Sachs Asset Management. Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% while JUST returned +18.75%. Year to date, IWB is up 12.91% versus a gain of 14.35% for JUST.
Over three years, IWB compounded at +21.96% per year against +22.22% for JUST; over five years the annualized figures are +12.34% and +12.57% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, JUST has the edge at +13.71% annualized vs +13.65%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.8% compared with 16.6% for JUST. 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 -33.8% for JUST. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 1.00. 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 JUST 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, IWB currently yields 0.92% against 0.94% for JUST.
Holdings Overlap
78.5% of IWB's money is in holdings JUST also owns. 99.9% of JUST's money is in holdings IWB also owns.
Most of JUST is already inside IWB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
459 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 462 in JUST, against full books of 1,023 and 461.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for JUST that do not appear in our book for IWB (0.1% of the fund), and 471 for IWB that do not appear in JUST (20.9%).
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 JUST | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.63% | 8.84% | 1.21% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.77% | 7.84% | 1.07% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp_None_0 | 5.40% | 6.25% | 0.85% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.41% | 4.86% | 1.45% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 2.79% | 3.24% | 0.45% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.26% | 2.62% | 0.36% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 2.26% | 2.61% | 0.35% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.75% | 2.03% | 0.28% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co | 1.26% | 1.94% | 0.68% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc. | 1.42% | 1.64% | 0.22% |
99.9% of JUST 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 JUST?
IWB has an expense ratio of 0.15% while JUST charges 0.20%. IWB is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWB or JUST?
Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% vs +18.75% for JUST, so JUST leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), IWB annualized +13.65% vs +13.71% for JUST. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWB or JUST?
IWB has been the more volatile fund at 16.8% annualized versus 16.6% for JUST. Worst drawdown: IWB -34.6% vs JUST -33.8%.
Should I hold both IWB and JUST?
IWB and JUST have a monthly-return correlation of 1.00, 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 JUST?
99.9% of JUST's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 99.9% of JUST's is in holdings IWB also owns. They hold 459 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 462 in JUST.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or JUST?
IWB yields 0.92% while JUST yields 0.94%, so JUST currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is JUST better than IWB?
IWB has a lower expense ratio. JUST led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. IWB is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.