GET DAILY SIGNALSIWF vs VONG: Same Benchmark, Different Costs for Russell 1000 Growth Exposure
Key Takeaways
- IWF and VONG track the same benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index, giving them nearly identical portfolios and sector exposure.
- The decisive structural difference is cost: VONG charges roughly 0.07%, about one-third of IWF's 0.19% expense ratio.
- Both funds are heavily concentrated in mega-cap technology, with NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, and Alphabet dominating the top of the portfolio.
- IWF is substantially larger in assets under management (AUM) and trading volume, offering deeper liquidity for institutional traders.
- Tickeron AI Verdict: VONG — nearly identical exposure delivered at a materially lower cost.
Introduction
Investors looking for large-cap U.S. growth exposure often come across two funds that function essentially as twins: the iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and the Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF. This comparison stands out because the products do not simply compete; they replicate the same underlying index with matching holdings, sector allocations, and risk characteristics. When two funds deliver nearly identical exposure, the focus naturally shifts from what they own to how efficiently they deliver it. Factors like cost, liquidity, replication method, and issuer structure become the key points of differentiation.
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) Overview
The iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF), from BlackRock, is a passive fund designed to track the Russell 1000 Growth Index. It holds about 390 positions using representative sampling. The portfolio is concentrated at the top, with NVDA at roughly 15% of assets, AAPL near 8%, MSFT near 6%, and Alphabet (GOOGL and GOOG) combined around 11%, plus AVGO, META, TSLA, MU, and LLY. Technology makes up about 55% to 60% of the fund, with consumer discretionary in the low-to-mid teens and communication services near 12%. The expense ratio sits at approximately 0.19%, and the fund offers strong liquidity along with a history dating back to 2000. I also checked this using Tickeron’s AI Screener to see how the holdings line up against peers.
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF (VONG) Overview
The Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF (VONG) follows the same Russell 1000 Growth Index but employs full replication, holding every constituent at its market-cap weight. It maintains a similar count of around 390 positions and the same top holdings: NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, Alphabet, AVGO, META, TSLA, MU, and LLY. Sector weights align closely with the index, technology again at 55% to 60%. What sets it apart is the expense ratio of about 0.07%, one of the lowest in its category. Launched in 2010, it has a smaller AUM than IWF yet remains quite liquid.
Industry and Thematic Backdrop
Both ETFs sit at the heart of the dominant market theme around artificial intelligence and semiconductors. Heavy weighting in NVDA, AVGO, and MSFT means performance tracks closely with AI capital spending, cloud demand, and data-center expansion. That same concentration introduces risk if earnings or expectations shift for these names. Interest-rate sensitivity, growth-versus-value rotations, regulatory pressures on big tech, and semiconductor supply-chain issues all remain relevant factors. From what I see, these macro drivers continue to shape outcomes across market cycles.
Performance and Positioning Comparison
Because both track the identical index, recent performance has been virtually the same, with any minor differences stemming mainly from fees and slight tracking variations. Over longer horizons, the expense gap gives VONG a modest edge through compounding. Volatility and drawdown profiles match closely. The main operational distinction lies in scale: IWF provides greater AUM, tighter spreads for larger trades, and a more developed options market, whereas VONG delivers comparable beta at lower cost. For most long-term holders the fee advantage stands out; shorter-term traders may value the liquidity of IWF more.
Using Tickeron’s AI Screener for ETF Comparisons
In my research process, I frequently turn to Tickeron’s AI Screener to compare ETFs like these side by side. It lets me filter on technical patterns, fundamentals, volatility, and AI signals across thousands of securities, helping confirm similarities in holdings and sector exposure without manual effort. The tool streamlines spotting how two funds stack up on cost and liquidity metrics, sharpening the overall workflow when evaluating growth-oriented products.
Disclaimer
The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.
IWF in upward trend: price may jump up because it broke its lower Bollinger Band on October 30, 2026
IWF may jump back above the lower band and head toward the middle band. Traders may consider buying the stock or exploring call options. In 42 of 43 cases where IWF's price broke its lower Bollinger Band, its price rose further in the following month. The odds of a continued upward trend are 90%.
Technical Analysis (Indicators)
Bullish Trend Analysis
The RSI Indicator points to a transition from a downward trend to an upward trend -- in cases where IWF's RSI Oscillator exited the oversold zone, 25 of 30 resulted in an increase in price. Tickeron's analysis proposes that the odds of a continued upward trend are 83%.
The Stochastic Oscillator suggests the stock price trend may be in a reversal from a downward trend to an upward trend. 42 of 51 cases where IWF's Stochastic Oscillator exited the oversold zone resulted in an increase in price. Tickeron's analysis proposes that the odds of a continued upward trend are 82%.
Following a +1.75% 3-day Advance, the price is estimated to grow further. Considering data from situations where IWF advanced for three days, in 303 of 359 cases, the price rose further within the following month. The odds of a continued upward trend are 84%.
The Aroon Indicator entered an Uptrend today. In 344 of 379 cases where IWF Aroon's Indicator entered an Uptrend, the price rose further within the following month. The odds of a continued Uptrend are 90%.
Bearish Trend Analysis
The Momentum Indicator moved below the 0 level on October 14, 2026. You may want to consider selling the stock, shorting the stock, or exploring put options on IWF as a result. In 62 of 75 cases where the Momentum Indicator fell below 0, the stock fell further within the subsequent month. The odds of a continued downward trend are 83%.
The Moving Average Convergence Divergence Histogram (MACD) for IWF turned negative on October 14, 2026. This could be a sign that the stock is set to turn lower in the coming weeks. Traders may want to sell the stock or buy put options. Tickeron's A.I.dvisor looked at 47 similar instances when the indicator turned negative. In 38 of the 47 cases the stock turned lower in the days that followed. This puts the odds of success at 81%.
IWF moved below its 50-day moving average on October 16, 2026 date and that indicates a change from an upward trend to a downward trend.
The 10-day moving average for IWF crossed bearishly below the 50-day moving average on October 23, 2026. This indicates that the trend has shifted lower and could be considered a sell signal. In 13 of 14 past instances when the 10-day crossed below the 50-day, the stock continued to move higher over the following month. The odds of a continued downward trend are 90%.
Following a 3-day decline, the stock is projected to fall further. Considering past instances where IWF declined for three days, the price rose further in 50 of 62 cases within the following month. The odds of a continued downward trend are 80%.
Notable companies
Industry description
Market Cap
High and low price notable news
Volume
Fundamental Analysis Ratings
The average fundamental analysis ratings, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, are as follows
Advertisement
General Information
Category LargeGrowth
Advertisement