Screener
FSGS vs IWF
First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Key differences
- IWF costs 0.43% less per year.
- IWF is significantly larger than FSGS — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- Over the last 3 years, IWF has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| FSGS | IWF | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.61% | 0.18% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $29M | $124.7B |
| Since | 2017 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.35% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +6.0% | +27.5% |
| CAGR 3Y | +8.3% | +26.4% |
| CAGR 5Y | +2.5% | +15.5% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.33 | 1.13 |
| Volatility 1Y | 15.30% | 15.55% |
| Max drawdown | -43.25% | -32.72% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to FSGS and IWF
Explore further