IWR vs MCDS
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF vs JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF
Which is better, IWR or MCDS?
Nearly the same fund. IWR costs less.
IWR has a lower expense ratio. IWR led over the full window, MCDS over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IWR is less concentrated, with 7.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 14.3%.
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 | IWR | MCDS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18%Best | 0.35% |
| AUM | $56.7B | $8M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.19% | 1.05% |
| Holdings | 825 | 208 |
| YTD Return | +12.13% | +12.25%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.18% | +15.68%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.55% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.30% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.1% | 12.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -21.1%Best | -22.5% |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $13,631Best | $13,279 |
| Top 10 Weight | 7.0%Best | 14.3% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Mid Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 17, 2001 | Aug 7, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 8, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.2 years).
IWR vs MCDS 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
IWR vs MCDS Performance
iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF (IWR) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Over the past year IWR returned +14.18% while MCDS returned +15.68%. Year to date, IWR is up 12.13% versus a gain of 12.25% for MCDS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.1% compared with 12.9% for MCDS. 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 -21.1% for IWR and -22.5% for MCDS. 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
IWR charges 0.18% per year while MCDS charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $35 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IWR currently yields 1.19% against 1.05% for MCDS.
Holdings Overlap
36.9% of IWR's money is in holdings MCDS also owns. 88.7% of MCDS's money is in holdings IWR also owns.
Most of MCDS is already inside IWR. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
181 positions in common, counted across the 823 positions we hold weights for in IWR and 204 in MCDS, against full books of 825 and 208.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 18 positions for MCDS that do not appear in our book for IWR (8.9% of the fund), and 612 for IWR that do not appear in MCDS (60.2%).
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 IWR | Weight in MCDS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 0.92% | 1.72% | 0.80% |
| HPEHewlett Packard Enterprise Co. | 0.64% | 1.31% | 0.67% |
| CAHCardinal Health Inc. | 0.40% | 1.15% | 0.75% |
| STTState Street Corp. | 0.35% | 1.20% | 0.85% |
| NTRANatera Inc | 0.42% | 1.12% | 0.70% |
| WABWestinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. | 0.36% | 1.11% | 0.75% |
| TERTeradyne Inc | 0.48% | 0.94% | 0.46% |
| AMEAmetek Inc. | 0.42% | 0.86% | 0.44% |
| MTBM&t Bank Corp. | 0.23% | 1.04% | 0.81% |
| LNGCheniere Corp Christi | 0.42% | 0.83% | 0.41% |
88.7% of MCDS is already inside IWR.
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, IWR or MCDS?
IWR has an expense ratio of 0.18% while MCDS charges 0.35%. IWR is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IWR or MCDS?
Over the past year IWR returned +14.18% vs +15.68% for MCDS, so MCDS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), IWR annualized +15.12% vs +13.76% for MCDS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IWR or MCDS?
IWR has been the more volatile fund at 13.1% annualized versus 12.9% for MCDS. Worst drawdown: IWR -21.1% vs MCDS -22.5%.
Should I hold both IWR and MCDS?
IWR and MCDS 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 IWR and MCDS?
88.7% of MCDS's money is in holdings IWR also owns. 88.7% of MCDS's is in holdings IWR also owns. They hold 181 positions in common, counted across the 823 positions we hold weights for in IWR and 204 in MCDS.
Which pays a higher dividend, IWR or MCDS?
IWR yields 1.19% while MCDS yields 1.05%, so IWR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MCDS better than IWR?
IWR has a lower expense ratio. IWR led over the full window, MCDS over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IWR is less concentrated, with 7.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 14.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.