PlainIndex

ETF comparison

IWF vs MOAT

US Large Cap Growth vs Quality Factor.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF · VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

0 positions appear in both funds. Buying equal dollars of IWF and MOAT would leave roughly 0.0% of each dollar exposed to the same underlying securities.

IWF only 0.0% Shared 0.0% MOAT only 0.0%
In IWF only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In MOAT only
0 positions

Holdings data for IWF covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Holdings data for MOAT covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Side by side

IWF

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF

iShares · US Large Cap Growth

89 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.18%
Net assets
$124.67B
TTM yield
0.35%
Top-10 conc.
—
MOAT

VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF

VanEck · Quality Factor

74 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.46%
Net assets
$11.77B
TTM yield
1.40%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

82
Cost
54
89
Tax efficiency
83
100
Liquidity
100
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
IWF sub-score MOAT

Tracking-quality sub-score is not yet computed for any fund — see methodology for which inputs are live.

Cost difference

IWF is 28 bps cheaper than MOAT. On a $100,000 position that's about $280/yr more in fees for MOAT.

Fee figure is the annual expense charged on $100,000. It compounds over time — we publish a fuller cost-projection calculator on the methodology page.

Top shared holdings

0 shared in total

No shared holdings between these funds.

Only in IWF

0 total

Every IWF position is also held by MOAT.

Only in MOAT

0 total

Every MOAT position is also held by IWF.

Holdings overlap is the sum of min(weight_a, weight_b) over positions matched on ISIN (CUSIP fallback). Methodology: see /methodology/.

Comparing two funds doesn't endorse swapping one for the other. Tax-lot history, account type, and personal goals matter — PlainIndex publishes data and methodology, not investment advice.