Screener
IAT vs IWB
iShares U.S. Regional Banks ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Key differences
- IWB costs 0.23% less per year.
- IWB is significantly larger than IAT — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- Over the last 3 years, IAT has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWB has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| IAT | IWB | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.38% | 0.15% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $625M | $46.2B |
| Since | 2006 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 2.76% | 0.96% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +28.4% | +29.9% |
| CAGR 3Y | +25.3% | +22.7% |
| CAGR 5Y | +2.0% | +13.5% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.85 | 1.21 |
| Volatility 1Y | 21.75% | 12.07% |
| Max drawdown | -55.55% | -34.60% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IAT and IWB
Explore further