IWF vs LSGR
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF
Which is better, IWF or LSGR?
IWF has been ahead.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 76.0%.
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 | IWF | LSGR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.59% |
| AUM | $129.6B | $929M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 370 | 44 |
| YTD Return | +5.65%Best | +2.25% |
| 1Y Return | +7.28%Best | +3.06% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.37%Best | +21.65% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.59% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.1%Best | 17.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.4% | -22.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.3 years | $18,646Best | $18,236 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.4%Best | 76.0% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Natixis Funds |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Jun 29, 2023 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 29, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.3 years).
IWF vs LSGR 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 3.3 years both funds cover.
IWF vs LSGR Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) is an ETF from Natixis Funds. Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% while LSGR returned +3.06%. Year to date, IWF is up 5.65% versus a gain of 2.25% for LSGR.
Over three years, IWF compounded at +22.37% per year against +21.65% for LSGR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LSGR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.8% compared with 16.1% for IWF. 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 -22.9% for LSGR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWF charges 0.18% per year while LSGR charges 0.59%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $59 annually, a gap of $41 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.34% against 0.00% for LSGR.
Holdings Overlap
38.9% of IWF's money is in holdings LSGR also owns. 85.9% of LSGR's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of LSGR is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
15 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 21 in LSGR, against full books of 370 and 44.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 6 positions for LSGR that do not appear in our book for IWF (13.6% of the fund), and 287 for IWF that do not appear in LSGR (60.6%).
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 LSGR | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.77% | 18.76% | 2.99% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.77% | 11.66% | 5.89% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.82% | 9.04% | 5.22% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.58% | 6.07% | 0.49% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.03% | 6.14% | 3.11% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.59% | 7.62% | 7.03% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.79% | 3.99% | 2.20% |
| MNSTMonster Beverage Corp. | 0.08% | 4.59% | 4.51% |
| NFLXNetflix, Inc. | 0.82% | 3.38% | 2.56% |
| ORCLOracle Corp - Common | 0.69% | 3.11% | 2.42% |
85.9% of LSGR 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 LSGR?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while LSGR charges 0.59%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $41 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or LSGR?
Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% vs +3.06% for LSGR, so IWF leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or LSGR?
LSGR has been the more volatile fund at 17.8% annualized versus 16.1% for IWF. Worst drawdown: IWF -23.4% vs LSGR -22.9%.
Should I hold both IWF and LSGR?
IWF and LSGR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 IWF and LSGR?
85.9% of LSGR's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 85.9% of LSGR's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 15 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 21 in LSGR.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or LSGR?
IWF yields 0.34% while LSGR yields 0.00%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LSGR better than IWF?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 76.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.