Screener
ACSG vs IWF
American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Key differences
- IWF costs 0.31% less per year.
- IWF is significantly larger than ACSG — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- ACSG follows a active selection strategy; IWF uses index tracking.
- IWF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| ACSG | IWF | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.49% | 0.18% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $15M | $124.7B |
| Since | 2025 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | — | 0.35% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | N/A | +27.5% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +26.4% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +15.5% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 1.13 |
| Volatility 1Y | — | 15.55% |
| Max drawdown | -13.28% | -32.72% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to ACSG and IWF
Explore further