Screener
IWF vs GSGO
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF vs Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF
Key differences
- IWF costs 0.27% less per year.
- IWF is significantly larger than GSGO — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- IWF follows a index tracking strategy; GSGO uses active selection.
Side-by-side comparison
| IWF | GSGO | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.18% | 0.45% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $124.7B | $163M |
| Since | 2000 | 1999 |
| Dividend yield | 0.35% | 0.00% |
| 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% | -13.88% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IWF and GSGO
Explore further