IWB vs QLV
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF
Which is better, IWB or QLV?
IWB has been ahead.
QLV has a lower expense ratio. IWB led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. IWB is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.8%.
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 | QLV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.08%Best |
| AUM | $49.5B | $171M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.92% | 1.50% |
| Holdings | 1,023 | 125 |
| YTD Return | +12.91% | +13.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.56%Best | +14.01% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.96%Best | +16.91% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.34%Best | +10.85% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.7% | 13.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -34.6% | -34.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,893Best | $16,737 |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.0%Best | 36.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jul 15, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 16, 2019 to Oct 14, 2026 (7.2 years).
IWB vs QLV 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 7.2 years both funds cover.
IWB vs QLV Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF (QLV) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% while QLV returned +14.01%. Year to date, IWB is up 12.91% versus a gain of 13.30% for QLV.
Over three years, IWB compounded at +21.96% per year against +16.91% for QLV; over five years the annualized figures are +12.34% and +10.85% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, IWB has the edge at +14.71% annualized vs +11.51%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.7% compared with 13.6% for QLV. 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 -34.0% for QLV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. 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 QLV charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $8 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWB currently yields 0.92% against 1.50% for QLV.
Holdings Overlap
55.3% of IWB's money is in holdings QLV also owns. 94.0% of QLV's money is in holdings IWB also owns.
Most of QLV is already inside IWB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
107 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 120 in QLV, against full books of 1,023 and 125.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 7 positions for QLV that do not appear in our book for IWB (2.7% of the fund), and 807 for IWB that do not appear in QLV (43.8%).
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 IWB | Weight in QLV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 7.63% | 6.86% | 0.77% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.77% | 6.09% | 0.68% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.40% | 6.58% | 1.18% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.41% | 2.46% | 0.95% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.88% | 4.25% | 3.37% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 2.79% | 1.94% | 0.85% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.26% | 1.81% | 0.45% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 2.26% | 1.47% | 0.79% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.96% | 2.38% | 1.42% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 2.26% | 1.04% | 1.22% |
94.0% of QLV 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 QLV?
IWB has an expense ratio of 0.15% while QLV charges 0.08%. QLV is the cheaper option, by $7 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWB or QLV?
Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% vs +14.01% for QLV, so IWB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), IWB annualized +14.71% vs +11.51% for QLV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWB or QLV?
IWB has been the more volatile fund at 16.7% annualized versus 13.6% for QLV. Worst drawdown: IWB -34.6% vs QLV -34.0%.
Should I hold both IWB and QLV?
IWB and QLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 QLV?
94.0% of QLV's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 94.0% of QLV's is in holdings IWB also owns. They hold 107 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 120 in QLV.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or QLV?
IWB yields 0.92% while QLV yields 1.50%, so QLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QLV better than IWB?
QLV has a lower expense ratio. IWB led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. IWB is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.