IWB vs RECS
iShares Russell 1000 ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
Which is better, IWB or RECS?
Each has led over a different period.
IWB led over 1Y and the full window, RECS over 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWB is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.0%.
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 | RECS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Tie | 0.15%Tie |
| AUM | $49.5B | $6.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.92% | 1.01% |
| Holdings | 1,023 | 718 |
| YTD Return | +12.91%Best | +11.16% |
| 1Y Return | +16.56%Best | +15.54% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.96% | +22.44%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.34% | +13.81%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0%Best | 16.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -56.4% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,893 | $19,094Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.0%Best | 42.0% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 15, 2000 | Sep 25, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 15, 2001 to Oct 14, 2026 (25.2 years).
IWB vs RECS 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 25.2 years both funds cover.
IWB vs RECS Performance
iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% while RECS returned +15.54%. Year to date, IWB is up 12.91% versus a gain of 11.16% for RECS.
Over three years, IWB compounded at +21.96% per year against +22.44% for RECS; over five years the annualized figures are +12.34% and +13.81% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, IWB has the edge at +8.19% annualized vs +4.01%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RECS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.4% compared with 15.0% 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 -56.4% for IWB and -34.3% for RECS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. 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 RECS charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $15 annually. On income, IWB currently yields 0.92% against 1.01% for RECS.
Holdings Overlap
37.9% of IWB's money is in holdings RECS also owns. 93.0% of RECS's money is in holdings IWB also owns.
Most of RECS is already inside IWB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
337 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 353 in RECS, against full books of 1,023 and 718.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for RECS that do not appear in our book for IWB (5.6% of the fund), and 599 for IWB that do not appear in RECS (61.2%).
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 RECS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.63% | 12.01% | 4.38% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.77% | 11.96% | 5.19% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.26% | 4.79% | 2.53% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.75% | 2.28% | 0.53% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 0.63% | 2.36% | 1.73% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.49% | 2.04% | 1.55% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.54% | 1.60% | 1.06% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.61% | 1.05% | 0.44% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 0.60% | 0.93% | 0.33% |
| TJXTjx Cos., Inc. | 0.21% | 1.24% | 1.03% |
93.0% of RECS 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 RECS?
IWB has an expense ratio of 0.15% while RECS charges 0.15%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, IWB or RECS?
Over the past year IWB returned +16.56% vs +15.54% for RECS, so IWB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IWB annualized +8.19% vs +4.01% for RECS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWB or RECS?
RECS has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 15.0% for IWB. Worst drawdown: IWB -56.4% vs RECS -34.3%.
Should I hold both IWB and RECS?
IWB and RECS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 RECS?
93.0% of RECS's money is in holdings IWB also owns. 93.0% of RECS's is in holdings IWB also owns. They hold 337 positions in common, counted across the 1,024 positions we hold weights for in IWB and 353 in RECS.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWB or RECS?
IWB yields 0.92% while RECS yields 1.01%, so RECS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RECS better than IWB?
IWB led over 1Y and the full window, RECS over 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWB is less concentrated, with 36.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.