IWF vs NBGX
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Neuberger Berman Growth ETF
Which is better, IWF or NBGX?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over the full window, NBGX over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. NBGX is less concentrated, with 52.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.2%.
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 | NBGX |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.44% |
| AUM | $127.8B | $15M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.35% | 0.39% |
| Holdings | 370 | 112 |
| YTD Return | +8.07% | +9.97%Best |
| 1Y Return | +8.91% | +10.90%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.33% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.49% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 15.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -23.1% | -21.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $12,676Best | $12,670 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.2% | 52.8%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Neuberger Berman ETF Trust |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Dec 18, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 19, 2024 to Oct 13, 2026 (1.8 years).
IWF vs NBGX 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
IWF vs NBGX Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Neuberger Berman Growth ETF (NBGX) is an ETF from Neuberger Berman ETF Trust. Over the past year IWF returned +8.91% while NBGX returned +10.90%. Year to date, IWF is up 8.07% versus a gain of 9.97% for NBGX.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 15.8% for NBGX. 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 -23.1% for IWF and -21.6% for NBGX. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. 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 NBGX 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 0.35% against 0.39% for NBGX.
Holdings Overlap
68.0% of IWF's money is in holdings NBGX also owns. 78.5% of NBGX's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of NBGX is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
35 positions in common, counted across the 367 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 55 in NBGX, against full books of 370 and 112.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 16 positions for NBGX that do not appear in our book for IWF (10.4% of the fund), and 269 for IWF that do not appear in NBGX (31.5%).
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 NBGX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.33% | 10.36% | 4.97% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 5.94% | 8.85% | 2.91% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.84% | 4.49% | 3.35% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.54% | 5.26% | 0.28% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.07% | 5.17% | 0.10% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.51% | 5.77% | 2.26% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.31% | 2.66% | 0.65% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.68% | 2.86% | 0.18% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.21% | 1.53% | 1.68% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.63% | 4.10% | 3.47% |
78.5% of NBGX 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 NBGX?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while NBGX charges 0.44%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or NBGX?
Over the past year IWF returned +8.91% vs +10.90% for NBGX, so NBGX leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IWF annualized +14.08% vs +14.05% for NBGX. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or NBGX?
IWF has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.8% for NBGX. Worst drawdown: IWF -23.1% vs NBGX -21.6%.
Should I hold both IWF and NBGX?
IWF and NBGX have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 NBGX?
78.5% of NBGX's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 78.5% of NBGX's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 35 positions in common, counted across the 367 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 55 in NBGX.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or NBGX?
IWF yields 0.35% while NBGX yields 0.39%, so NBGX currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NBGX better than IWF?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over the full window, NBGX over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. NBGX is less concentrated, with 52.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.