Screener
URTH vs IWB
iShares MSCI World ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Key differences
- IWB costs 0.09% less per year.
- IWB is significantly larger than URTH — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- URTH covers global markets; IWB covers north america.
- 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
| URTH | IWB | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.24% | 0.15% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $9.2B | $46.2B |
| Since | 2012 | 2000 |
| Dividend yield | 1.40% | 0.96% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | global | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +27.3% | +28.3% |
| CAGR 3Y | +21.2% | +22.8% |
| CAGR 5Y | +12.1% | +13.1% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 1.17 | 1.21 |
| Volatility 1Y | 12.16% | 12.07% |
| Max drawdown | -34.01% | -34.60% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to URTH and IWB
Explore further