Screener
RSSL vs IWF
Global X Russell 2000 ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Key differences
- RSSL costs 0.10% less per year.
- IWF is significantly larger than RSSL — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- IWF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| RSSL | IWF | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.08% | 0.18% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.4B | $124.7B |
| Since | 2024 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 1.33% | 0.35% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +45.0% | +29.2% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +26.1% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +15.8% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 1.12 |
| Volatility 1Y | 19.27% | 15.52% |
| Max drawdown | -27.79% | -32.72% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to RSSL and IWF
Explore further