IWB vs RECI
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Core Premium Income ETF
Which is better, IWB or RECI?
IWB costs less.
IWB has a lower expense ratio.
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 | RECI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.30% |
| AUM | $49.5B | $10M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.92% | 0.67% |
| Holdings | 1,023 | 715 |
| YTD Return | +12.91%Best | +2.97% |
| 1Y Return | +16.56% | - |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.96% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.34% | - |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Jul 14, 2026 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.
IWB vs RECI 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
IWB vs RECI Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core Premium Income ETF (RECI) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Year to date, IWB is up 12.91% versus a gain of 2.97% for RECI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWB charges 0.15% per year while RECI charges 0.30%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $30 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWB currently yields 0.92% against 0.67% for RECI.
Holdings Overlap
At least 37.9% of IWB's money is in holdings RECI also owns.
Stated as a floor: for RECI, our book for it covers 80.1% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
337 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 354 in RECI, against full books of 1,023 and 715.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IWB | Weight in RECI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.63% | 10.27% | 2.64% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.77% | 9.59% | 2.82% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.26% | 3.76% | 1.50% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.75% | 2.01% | 0.26% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 0.63% | 1.83% | 1.20% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.49% | 1.37% | 0.88% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.54% | 1.23% | 0.69% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.61% | 0.84% | 0.23% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 0.60% | 0.84% | 0.24% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 0.60% | 0.68% | 0.08% |
37.9% of IWB is already inside RECI.
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 RECI?
IWB has an expense ratio of 0.15% while RECI charges 0.30%. IWB is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between IWB and RECI?
At least 37.9% of IWB's money is in holdings RECI also owns. Our book for RECI is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 337 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 354 in RECI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or RECI?
IWB yields 0.92% while RECI yields 0.67%, so IWB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RECI better than IWB?
IWB has a lower expense ratio. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.