IWF vs LRGG
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF
Which is better, IWF or LRGG?
IWF has been ahead.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y and the full window. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 71.4%.
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 | IWF | LRGG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.44% |
| AUM | $129.6B | $295M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 370 | 44 |
| YTD Return | +5.65%Best | +3.29% |
| 1Y Return | +7.28%Best | +3.58% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.37% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.59% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.0% | 12.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -23.4% | -18.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.4 years | $14,564Best | $11,970 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.4%Best | 71.4% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Nomura Asset Management Co Ltd |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | May 14, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 15, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.4 years).
IWF vs LRGG 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 2.4 years both funds cover.
IWF vs LRGG Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Nomura Focused Large Growth ETF (LRGG) is an ETF from Nomura Asset Management Co Ltd. Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% while LRGG returned +3.58%. Year to date, IWF is up 5.65% versus a gain of 3.29% for LRGG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.0% compared with 12.4% for LRGG. 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 -23.4% for IWF and -18.9% for LRGG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWF charges 0.18% per year while LRGG charges 0.44%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $44 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.34% against 0.15% for LRGG.
Holdings Overlap
38.7% of IWF's money is in holdings LRGG also owns. 69.9% of LRGG's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
11 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 21 in LRGG, against full books of 370 and 44.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 7 positions for LRGG that do not appear in our book for IWF (19.2% of the fund), and 291 for IWF that do not appear in LRGG (60.8%).
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 IWF | Weight in LRGG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.77% | 17.15% | 1.38% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 4.66% | 10.98% | 6.32% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.58% | 9.02% | 3.44% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.58% | 6.88% | 0.70% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.79% | 4.60% | 2.81% |
| GEGeneral Electric Co. | 0.95% | 4.04% | 3.09% |
| ISRGIntuitive Surgical Inc. | 0.41% | 4.50% | 4.09% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.59% | 3.49% | 2.90% |
| MSIMotorola Solutions, Inc | 0.08% | 3.97% | 3.89% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.30% | 2.42% | 1.12% |
69.9% of LRGG is already inside IWF.
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, IWF or LRGG?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while LRGG charges 0.44%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or LRGG?
Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% vs +3.58% for LRGG, so IWF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IWF annualized +16.96% vs +7.78% for LRGG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or LRGG?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 16.0% annualized versus 12.4% for LRGG. Worst drawdown: IWF -23.4% vs LRGG -18.9%.
Should I hold both IWF and LRGG?
IWF and LRGG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IWF and LRGG?
69.9% of LRGG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 69.9% of LRGG's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 11 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 21 in LRGG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or LRGG?
IWF yields 0.34% while LRGG yields 0.15%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LRGG better than IWF?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y and the full window. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 71.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.