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