Screener
IHF vs IWB
iShares U.S. Healthcare Providers ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Key differences
- IWB costs 0.23% less per year.
- IWB is significantly larger than IHF — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- Over the last 3 years, IWB has delivered higher annualized returns.
- IWB has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| IHF | IWB | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.38% | 0.15% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $777M | $46.2B |
| Since | 2006 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 1.11% | 0.96% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +7.9% | +28.3% |
| CAGR 3Y | +1.4% | +22.8% |
| CAGR 5Y | -0.0% | +13.1% |
| Sharpe 3Y | -0.01 | 1.21 |
| Volatility 1Y | 21.56% | 12.07% |
| Max drawdown | -35.23% | -34.60% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IHF and IWB
Explore further