IWF vs TCHP
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF
Which is better, IWF or TCHP?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.3%.
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 | TCHP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.57% |
| AUM | $129.6B | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 370 | 65 |
| YTD Return | +5.65%Best | +2.74% |
| 1Y Return | +7.28%Best | +5.10% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.37%Best | +21.81% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.59%Best | +9.18% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.6%Best | 19.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7%Best | -42.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,093Best | $15,514 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.4%Best | 59.3% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | T.Rowe Price |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Aug 4, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 5, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.2 years).
IWF vs TCHP 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 6.2 years both funds cover.
IWF vs TCHP Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF (TCHP) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price. Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% while TCHP returned +5.10%. Year to date, IWF is up 5.65% versus a gain of 2.74% for TCHP.
Over three years, IWF compounded at +22.37% per year against +21.81% for TCHP; over five years the annualized figures are +12.59% and +9.18% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, IWF has the edge at +15.44% annualized vs +12.03%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TCHP has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.7% compared with 18.6% 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 -42.3% for TCHP. 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 TCHP charges 0.57%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $57 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.34% against 0.00% for TCHP.
Holdings Overlap
77.4% of IWF's money is in holdings TCHP also owns. 89.1% of TCHP's money is in holdings IWF also owns.
Most of TCHP is already inside IWF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
43 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 62 in TCHP, against full books of 370 and 65.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 15 positions for TCHP that do not appear in our book for IWF (7.0% of the fund), and 259 for IWF that do not appear in TCHP (22.1%).
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 TCHP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.77% | 17.43% | 1.66% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.58% | 4.94% | 2.64% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.58% | 5.92% | 0.34% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.77% | 5.50% | 0.27% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 4.66% | 5.94% | 1.28% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.68% | 5.79% | 1.11% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.82% | 3.53% | 0.29% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.93% | 2.92% | 0.01% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.69% | 3.05% | 0.36% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.03% | 2.26% | 0.77% |
89.1% of TCHP 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 TCHP?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while TCHP charges 0.57%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $39 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or TCHP?
Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% vs +5.10% for TCHP, so IWF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), IWF annualized +15.44% vs +12.03% for TCHP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or TCHP?
TCHP has been the more volatile fund at 19.7% annualized versus 18.6% for IWF. Worst drawdown: IWF -32.7% vs TCHP -42.3%.
Should I hold both IWF and TCHP?
IWF and TCHP 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 TCHP?
89.1% of TCHP's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 89.1% of TCHP's is in holdings IWF also owns. They hold 43 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 62 in TCHP.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or TCHP?
IWF yields 0.34% while TCHP yields 0.00%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TCHP better than IWF?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.