IWB vs LCTU
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs iShares US Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF
Which is better, IWB or LCTU?
IWB has been ahead.
IWB led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. LCTU is less concentrated, with 35.5% 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 | LCTU |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Tie | 0.15%Tie |
| AUM | $49.5B | $1.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.92% | 0.97% |
| Holdings | 1,023 | 334 |
| YTD Return | +12.91%Best | +11.76% |
| 1Y Return | +16.56%Best | +15.34% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.96%Best | +21.21% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.34%Best | +11.70% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2%Best | 15.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -25.2%Best | -25.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,893Best | $17,389 |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.0% | 35.5%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Apr 6, 2021 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 8, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.5 years).
IWB vs LCTU 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 5.5 years both funds cover.
IWB vs LCTU Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and iShares US Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF (LCTU) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% while LCTU returned +15.34%. Year to date, IWB is up 12.91% versus a gain of 11.76% for LCTU.
Over three years, IWB compounded at +21.96% per year against +21.21% for LCTU; over five years the annualized figures are +12.34% and +11.70% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IWB has the edge at +12.82% annualized vs +12.46%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LCTU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 15.2% for IWB. 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 -25.2% for IWB and -25.9% for LCTU. 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 LCTU charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $15 annually. On income, IWB currently yields 0.92% against 0.97% for LCTU.
Holdings Overlap
77.2% of IWB's money is in holdings LCTU also owns. 96.5% of LCTU's money is in holdings IWB also owns.
Most of LCTU is already inside IWB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
314 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 331 in LCTU, against full books of 1,023 and 334.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 8 positions for LCTU that do not appear in our book for IWB (2.6% of the fund), and 607 for IWB that do not appear in LCTU (21.9%).
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 LCTU | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.63% | 8.16% | 0.53% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.77% | 7.17% | 0.40% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.40% | 4.94% | 0.46% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.41% | 3.08% | 0.33% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.79% | 2.49% | 0.30% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.26% | 2.43% | 0.17% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.26% | 2.04% | 0.22% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.26% | 1.91% | 0.35% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.75% | 1.66% | 0.09% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.42% | 1.64% | 0.22% |
96.5% of LCTU 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 LCTU?
IWB has an expense ratio of 0.15% while LCTU charges 0.15%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, IWB or LCTU?
Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% vs +15.34% for LCTU, so IWB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), IWB annualized +12.82% vs +12.46% for LCTU. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWB or LCTU?
LCTU has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 15.2% for IWB. Worst drawdown: IWB -25.2% vs LCTU -25.9%.
Should I hold both IWB and LCTU?
IWB and LCTU 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 LCTU?
96.5% of LCTU's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 96.5% of LCTU's is in holdings IWB also owns. They hold 314 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 331 in LCTU.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or LCTU?
IWB yields 0.92% while LCTU yields 0.97%, so LCTU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LCTU better than IWB?
IWB led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 1.00. LCTU is less concentrated, with 35.5% 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.