IWF vs PJFG
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF
Which is better, IWF or PJFG?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. PJFG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 61.0%.
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 | PJFG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.75% |
| AUM | $129.6B | $148M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 370 | 78 |
| YTD Return | +5.65% | +8.89%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.28% | +10.08%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.37% | +22.92%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.59% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.9%Best | 18.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.4%Best | -24.2% |
| $10,000 over 3.8 years | $22,144 | $23,806Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.4%Best | 61.0% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | PGIM Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Dec 12, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 14, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.8 years).
IWF vs PJFG 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 3.8 years both funds cover.
IWF vs PJFG Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and PGIM Jennison Focused Growth ETF (PJFG) is an ETF from PGIM Investments. Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% while PJFG returned +10.08%. Year to date, IWF is up 5.65% versus a gain of 8.89% for PJFG.
Over three years, IWF compounded at +22.37% per year against +22.92% for PJFG. Across the full 4-year window we track, PJFG has the edge at +25.64% annualized vs +23.27%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PJFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.1% compared with 15.9% 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 -24.2% for PJFG. 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 PJFG charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $75 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.34% against 0.00% for PJFG.
Holdings Overlap
63.5% of IWF's money is in holdings PJFG also owns. 90.6% of PJFG's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of PJFG is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
30 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 37 in PJFG, against full books of 370 and 78.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 4 positions for PJFG that do not appear in our book for IWF (5.3% of the fund), and 272 for IWF that do not appear in PJFG (36.1%).
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 PJFG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.77% | 12.21% | 3.56% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.77% | 9.23% | 3.46% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.58% | 6.74% | 0.84% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.58% | 6.42% | 0.84% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.68% | 4.72% | 0.04% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.82% | 4.17% | 0.35% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.93% | 4.52% | 1.59% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.69% | 4.26% | 1.57% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.59% | 5.20% | 4.61% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.03% | 2.57% | 0.46% |
90.6% of PJFG 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 PJFG?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while PJFG charges 0.75%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or PJFG?
Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% vs +10.08% for PJFG, so PJFG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IWF annualized +23.27% vs +25.64% for PJFG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or PJFG?
PJFG has been the more volatile fund at 18.1% annualized versus 15.9% for IWF. Worst drawdown: IWF -23.4% vs PJFG -24.2%.
Should I hold both IWF and PJFG?
IWF and PJFG 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 PJFG?
90.6% of PJFG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 90.6% of PJFG's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 30 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 37 in PJFG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or PJFG?
IWF yields 0.34% while PJFG yields 0.00%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is PJFG better than IWF?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. PJFG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 61.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.