IWFG vs VTI
NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IWFG or VTI?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWFG led over 3Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% 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 | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.46% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $27M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 58 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +3.74% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | +3.78% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.23%Best | +21.97% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.99% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.1% | 14.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -22.0% | -19.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.3 years | $23,226Best | $21,105 |
| Top 10 Weight | 64.2% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | New York Life Investments | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 22, 2022 | May 24, 2001 |
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 VTI 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 VTI Performance
NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is an ETF from New York Life Investments and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IWFG returned +3.78% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, IWFG is up 3.74% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, IWFG compounded at +22.23% per year against +21.97% for VTI. Across the full 4-year window we track, IWFG has the edge at +21.65% annualized vs +18.97%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.1% compared with 14.8% for VTI. 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 -19.3% for VTI. 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
IWFG charges 0.46% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $46 vs $3 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWFG currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
97.3% of IWFG's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 34.5% of VTI's money is in holdings IWFG also owns.
Most of IWFG is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
26 positions in common, counted across the 27 positions we hold weights for in IWFG and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 58 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,130 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IWFG (63.0% of the fund), and 0 for IWFG that do not appear in VTI (0.0%).
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 VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 14.99% | 6.88% | 8.11% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 11.19% | 2.12% | 9.07% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.46% | 6.30% | 0.84% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.57% | 5.11% | 1.46% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 6.24% | 3.41% | 2.83% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.47% | 1.70% | 2.77% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.71% | 2.38% | 1.33% |
| STXSeagate Technolo | 4.48% | 0.25% | 4.23% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.96% | 1.33% | 1.63% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 3.51% | 0.63% | 2.88% |
97.3% of IWFG is already inside VTI.
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 VTI?
IWFG has an expense ratio of 0.46% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $43 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWFG or VTI?
Over the past year IWFG returned +3.78% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IWFG annualized +21.65% vs +18.97% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWFG or VTI?
IWFG has been the more volatile fund at 18.1% annualized versus 14.8% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IWFG -22.0% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both IWFG and VTI?
IWFG and VTI 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 IWFG and VTI?
97.3% of IWFG's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 34.5% of VTI's is in holdings IWFG also owns. They hold 26 positions in common, counted across the 27 positions we hold weights for in IWFG and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWFG or VTI?
IWFG yields 0.00% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IWFG?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IWFG led over 3Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% 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.