Screener
BCFN vs IWB
Baron Financials ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Key differences
- IWB costs 0.65% less per year.
- IWB is significantly larger than BCFN — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- IWB has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| BCFN | IWB | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.80% | 0.15% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $48M | $46.2B |
| Since | 2019 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.96% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | — | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | N/A | +29.9% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +22.7% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +13.5% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 1.21 |
| Volatility 1Y | — | 12.07% |
| Max drawdown | -20.95% | -34.60% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BCFN and IWB
Explore further