IWD vs PJFV
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF vs PGIM Jennison Focused Value ETF
Which is better, IWD or PJFV?
PJFV has been ahead.
IWD has a lower expense ratio. PJFV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. IWD is less concentrated, with 29.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.1%.
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 | IWD | PJFV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.33% |
| AUM | $81.3B | $162M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.36% | 0.57% |
| Holdings | 869 | 37 |
| YTD Return | +21.23% | +21.80%Best |
| 1Y Return | +28.24% | +29.67%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.99% | +25.30%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.94% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.6% | 11.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -15.7%Best | -18.1% |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $17,519 | $20,888Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 29.1%Best | 41.1% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Dec 12, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 14, 2022 to Oct 13, 2026 (3.8 years).
IWD vs PJFV 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 3.8 years both funds cover.
IWD vs PJFV Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF (IWD) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and PGIM Jennison Focused Value ETF (PJFV) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year IWD returned +28.24% while PJFV returned +29.67%. Year to date, IWD is up 21.23% versus a gain of 21.80% for PJFV.
Over three years, IWD compounded at +20.99% per year against +25.30% for PJFV. Across the full 4-year window we track, PJFV has the edge at +21.39% annualized vs +15.90%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.6% compared with 11.7% for PJFV. 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 -15.7% for IWD and -18.1% for PJFV. 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
IWD charges 0.18% per year while PJFV charges 0.33%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $33 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWD currently yields 1.36% against 0.57% for PJFV.
Holdings Overlap
29.2% of IWD's money is in holdings PJFV also owns. 70.6% of PJFV's money is in holdings IWD also owns.
Most of PJFV is already inside IWD. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
23 positions in common, counted across the 865 positions we hold weights for in IWD and 35 in PJFV, against full books of 869 and 37.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 8 positions for PJFV that do not appear in our book for IWD (18.1% of the fund), and 766 for IWD that do not appear in PJFV (69.4%).
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 IWD | Weight in PJFV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.87% | 5.61% | 0.26% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.91% | 6.00% | 1.09% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 6.09% | 4.74% | 1.35% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 2.54% | 4.56% | 2.02% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.84% | 4.04% | 2.20% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 1.15% | 3.49% | 2.34% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 1.12% | 2.85% | 1.73% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 0.74% | 3.00% | 2.26% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 1.03% | 2.56% | 1.53% |
| PNCPnc Financial Services Group Inc. | 0.26% | 2.98% | 2.72% |
70.6% of PJFV is already inside IWD.
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, IWD or PJFV?
IWD has an expense ratio of 0.18% while PJFV charges 0.33%. IWD is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWD or PJFV?
Over the past year IWD returned +28.24% vs +29.67% for PJFV, so PJFV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IWD annualized +15.90% vs +21.39% for PJFV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWD or PJFV?
IWD has been the more volatile fund at 12.6% annualized versus 11.7% for PJFV. Worst drawdown: IWD -15.7% vs PJFV -18.1%.
Should I hold both IWD and PJFV?
IWD and PJFV 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 IWD and PJFV?
70.6% of PJFV's money is in holdings IWD also owns. 70.6% of PJFV's is in holdings IWD also owns. They hold 23 positions in common, counted across the 865 positions we hold weights for in IWD and 35 in PJFV.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWD or PJFV?
IWD yields 1.36% while PJFV yields 0.57%, so IWD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PJFV better than IWD?
IWD has a lower expense ratio. PJFV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. IWD is less concentrated, with 29.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.