IWFG vs IWLG
NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF vs NYLIM Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, IWFG or IWLG?
Nearly the same fund. IWFG costs less.
IWFG has a lower expense ratio. IWFG led over 3Y and the full window, IWLG over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWLG is less concentrated, with 57.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%.
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 | IWFG | IWLG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.46%Best | 0.50% |
| AUM | $27M | $327M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 58 | 82 |
| YTD Return | +3.74% | +5.96%Best |
| 1Y Return | +3.78% | +6.77%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.23%Best | +22.06% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.1%Best | 18.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -22.0%Best | -23.2% |
| $10,000 over 4.3 years | $23,226Best | $22,754 |
| Top 10 Weight | 64.2% | 57.9%Best |
| Fund Family | New York Life Investments | New York Life Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 22, 2022 | Jun 22, 2022 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 23, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (4.3 years).
IWFG vs IWLG 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 4.3 years both funds cover.
IWFG vs IWLG Performance
NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is an ETF from New York Life Investments and NYLIM Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) is an ETF from New York Life Investments. Over the past year IWFG returned +3.78% while IWLG returned +6.77%. Year to date, IWFG is up 3.74% versus a gain of 5.96% for IWLG.
Over three years, IWFG compounded at +22.23% per year against +22.06% for IWLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, IWFG has the edge at +21.65% annualized vs +21.07%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% compared with 18.1% for IWFG. 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 -22.0% for IWFG and -23.2% for IWLG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IWFG charges 0.46% per year while IWLG charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $46 vs $50 annually, a gap of $4 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWFG currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for IWLG.
Holdings Overlap
88.8% of IWFG's money is in holdings IWLG also owns. 77.5% of IWLG's money is in holdings IWFG also owns.
Most of IWFG is already inside IWLG. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
22 positions in common, counted across the 27 positions we hold weights for in IWFG and 37 in IWLG, against full books of 58 and 82.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 13 positions for IWLG that do not appear in our book for IWFG (19.7% of the fund), and 5 for IWFG that do not appear in IWLG (10.6%).
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 IWFG | Weight in IWLG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 14.99% | 14.02% | 0.97% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 11.19% | 10.62% | 0.57% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.57% | 6.96% | 0.39% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.46% | 4.31% | 1.15% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 6.24% | 3.08% | 3.16% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.47% | 3.48% | 0.99% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc | 3.58% | 3.71% | 0.13% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.96% | 3.71% | 0.75% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.71% | 2.95% | 0.76% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 2.97% | 3.27% | 0.30% |
88.8% of IWFG is already inside IWLG.
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, IWFG or IWLG?
IWFG has an expense ratio of 0.46% while IWLG charges 0.50%. IWFG is the cheaper option, by $4 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWFG or IWLG?
Over the past year IWFG returned +3.78% vs +6.77% for IWLG, so IWLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IWFG annualized +21.65% vs +21.07% for IWLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWFG or IWLG?
IWLG has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 18.1% for IWFG. Worst drawdown: IWFG -22.0% vs IWLG -23.2%.
Should I hold both IWFG and IWLG?
IWFG and IWLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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 IWFG and IWLG?
88.8% of IWFG's money is in holdings IWLG also owns. 77.5% of IWLG's is in holdings IWFG also owns. They hold 22 positions in common, counted across the 27 positions we hold weights for in IWFG and 37 in IWLG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWFG or IWLG?
IWFG yields 0.00% while IWLG yields 0.00%, so IWLG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWLG better than IWFG?
IWFG has a lower expense ratio. IWFG led over 3Y and the full window, IWLG over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IWLG is less concentrated, with 57.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.