IWF vs XOVR
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Which is better, IWF or XOVR?
IWF has been ahead.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. IWF led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90.
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 | XOVR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 1.81% |
| AUM | $129.6B | $1.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 370 | 33 |
| YTD Return | +5.65% | +6.41%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.28%Best | +1.58% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.37%Best | +22.10% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.59%Best | +5.66% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.8%Best | 24.0% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.7%Best | -56.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,093Best | $13,169 |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | ERShares |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 22, 2000 | Nov 7, 2017 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 8, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (8.9 years).
IWF vs XOVR 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 8.9 years both funds cover.
IWF vs XOVR Performance
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF (XOVR) is an ETF from ERShares. Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% while XOVR returned +1.58%. Year to date, IWF is up 5.65% versus a gain of 6.41% for XOVR.
Over three years, IWF compounded at +22.37% per year against +22.10% for XOVR; over five years the annualized figures are +12.59% and +5.66% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, IWF has the edge at +16.50% annualized vs +10.79%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XOVR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 24.0% compared with 18.8% 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 -56.3% for XOVR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. 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 XOVR charges 1.81%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $181 annually, a gap of $163 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWF currently yields 0.34% against 0.00% for XOVR.
Holdings Overlap
At least 33.0% of IWF's money is in holdings XOVR also owns.
Stated as a floor: for XOVR, our book for it covers 77.3% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
25 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 30 in XOVR, against full books of 370 and 33.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IWF | Weight in XOVR | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.77% | 9.73% | 6.04% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.77% | 5.74% | 0.03% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.82% | 4.78% | 0.96% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.62% | 1.70% | 1.92% |
| FTNTFortinet Inc | 0.32% | 3.33% | 3.01% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc Common Stock | 0.63% | 2.97% | 2.34% |
| HOODRobinhood Markets Inc - A | 0.21% | 3.34% | 3.13% |
| NTRANatera Inc | 0.16% | 2.95% | 2.79% |
| DASHDoordash Inc - A | 0.20% | 2.75% | 2.55% |
| RDDTReddit Inc-Cl A | 0.06% | 2.77% | 2.71% |
33.0% of IWF is already inside XOVR.
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 XOVR?
IWF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while XOVR charges 1.81%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $163 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWF or XOVR?
Over the past year IWF returned +7.28% vs +1.58% for XOVR, so IWF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), IWF annualized +16.50% vs +10.79% for XOVR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWF or XOVR?
XOVR has been the more volatile fund at 24.0% annualized versus 18.8% for IWF. Worst drawdown: IWF -32.7% vs XOVR -56.3%.
Should I hold both IWF and XOVR?
IWF and XOVR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 XOVR?
At least 33.0% of IWF's money is in holdings XOVR also owns. Our book for XOVR is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 25 positions in common, counted across the 372 positions we hold weights for in IWF and 30 in XOVR.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWF or XOVR?
IWF yields 0.34% while XOVR yields 0.00%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XOVR 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 0.90. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.