IWF vs NWLG
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Nuveen Winslow Large-Cap Growth ESG ETF
Which is better, IWF or NWLG?
Each has led over a different period.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over the full window, NWLG over 1Y. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 60.4%.
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 | NWLG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.65% |
| AUM | $129.6B | $9M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 370 | 42 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.0%Best | 21.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7%Best | -39.9% |
| $10,000 over 4.7 years | $15,685Best | $11,691 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.4%Best | 60.4% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Nuveen |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Aug 4, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).
The two price series end 191 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. IWF has data through Oct 14, 2026 and NWLG through Apr 6, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 5, 2021 to Apr 6, 2026 (4.7 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NWLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.3% compared with 19.0% 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 -32.7% for IWF and -39.9% for NWLG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWF charges 0.18% per year while NWLG charges 0.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $65 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.34% against 0.00% for NWLG.
Holdings Overlap
61.8% of IWF's money is in holdings NWLG also owns. 92.1% of NWLG's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of NWLG is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 274 days apart, IWF as of Oct 1, 2026 and NWLG as of Dec 31, 2025, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
33 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 39 in NWLG, against full books of 370 and 42.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 5 positions for NWLG that do not appear in our book for IWF (5.6% of the fund), and 269 for IWF that do not appear in NWLG (37.8%).
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 NWLG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.77% | 12.49% | 3.28% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.58% | 11.29% | 5.71% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.58% | 8.76% | 1.18% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 4.66% | 6.20% | 1.54% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.68% | 5.58% | 0.90% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.82% | 3.44% | 0.38% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.59% | 5.22% | 4.63% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.69% | 2.66% | 0.03% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.03% | 2.20% | 0.83% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.79% | 2.24% | 0.45% |
92.1% of NWLG 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 NWLG?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while NWLG charges 0.65%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, IWF or NWLG?
NWLG has been the more volatile fund at 21.3% annualized versus 19.0% for IWF. Worst drawdown: IWF -32.7% vs NWLG -39.9%.
Should I hold both IWF and NWLG?
IWF and NWLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, 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 NWLG?
92.1% of NWLG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 92.1% of NWLG's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 33 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 39 in NWLG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or NWLG?
IWF yields 0.34% while NWLG yields 0.00%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is NWLG better than IWF?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over the full window, NWLG over 1Y. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 60.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.