IWF vs MFSG
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs MFS Active Growth ETF
Which is better, IWF or MFSG?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over the full window, MFSG over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. MFSG is less concentrated, with 53.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.4%.
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 | MFSG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.49% |
| AUM | $129.6B | $406M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 370 | 69 |
| YTD Return | +5.65% | +7.53%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.28% | +9.18%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.37% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.59% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3%Best | 17.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.4% | -23.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $12,285Best | $12,025 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.4% | 53.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | MFS Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Dec 5, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 5, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.9 years).
IWF vs MFSG 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 1.9 years both funds cover.
IWF vs MFSG Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) is an ETF from MFS Investment Management. Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% while MFSG returned +9.18%. Year to date, IWF is up 5.65% versus a gain of 7.53% for MFSG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MFSG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.5% compared with 17.3% 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 -23.2% for MFSG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. 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 MFSG charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $49 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.34% against 0.06% for MFSG.
Holdings Overlap
68.0% of IWF's money is in holdings MFSG also owns. 79.2% of MFSG's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of MFSG is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
42 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 67 in MFSG, against full books of 370 and 69.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 20 positions for MFSG that do not appear in our book for IWF (15.4% of the fund), and 260 for IWF that do not appear in MFSG (31.6%).
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 MFSG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.77% | 13.98% | 1.79% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.77% | 11.60% | 5.83% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.58% | 6.42% | 1.16% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.58% | 5.28% | 0.30% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.68% | 3.20% | 1.48% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.82% | 2.81% | 1.01% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.79% | 3.36% | 1.57% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.62% | 1.15% | 2.47% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.93% | 1.33% | 1.60% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.03% | 0.86% | 2.17% |
79.2% of MFSG 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 MFSG?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while MFSG charges 0.49%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or MFSG?
Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% vs +9.18% for MFSG, so MFSG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IWF annualized +11.44% vs +10.19% for MFSG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or MFSG?
MFSG has been the more volatile fund at 17.5% annualized versus 17.3% for IWF. Worst drawdown: IWF -23.4% vs MFSG -23.2%.
Should I hold both IWF and MFSG?
IWF and MFSG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 MFSG?
79.2% of MFSG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 79.2% of MFSG's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 42 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 67 in MFSG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or MFSG?
IWF yields 0.34% while MFSG yields 0.06%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MFSG better than IWF?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over the full window, MFSG over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. MFSG is less concentrated, with 53.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.