IMCG ranks 2nd and IWF 14th of 35 funds in the US Growth Index Category.
IMCG vs IWF
IMCG −0.12pt a year
0.06%0.18%
IWF 34.1×the volume
132K4.51M
IWF +3.2pt
+14.3%+17.5%
IMCG vs IWF Performance
+30.8%+62.2%
- IMCG 0.06%, better
- IWF 0.18%
- IMCG $4.04B
- IWF $120B
- IMCG +14.0%, better
- IWF −2.8%
- IMCG 0.67%, better
- IWF 0.37%
- IMCG 262
- IWF 375
- IMCG 132K sh
- IWF 4.51M sh, better
- IMCG $93.24
- IWF $117.59
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | IMCG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A78Higher | C49 |
| Mission | A95 | A100Higher |
| Risk | A78Higher | D29 |
| Tradability | B61 | A96Higher |
| Holdings | A75Higher | C43 |
| Durability | B66 | A86Higher |
Rank among US Growth Index funds
Same Category. IMCG and IWF are both graded against the same 35 US Growth Index funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
IMCGA
IWFB
In short
IMCG Growth investing usually means megacaps. IMCG works the middle of the market instead: roughly 300 mid-cap growth names, indexed since 2004, for six basis points a year.
IWF Trading since 2000, IWF is the heavyweight way to own the Russell 1000 Growth Index: roughly 400 US large- and mid-cap growth names, in one of the biggest and busiest funds in its group. Cheaper clones of the same index exist.
Stated mandate
IMCG The Fund seeks to track an index of U.S. mid-capitalization equities with growth characteristics. Its strategy uses representative sampling and generally invests at least 80% of assets in securities from the Underlying Index.
IWF The Fund seeks to follow the Russell 1000 Growth Index, representing U.S. large- and mid-capitalization equities selected for growth characteristics. It generally invests at least 80% of assets in index components.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
IMCG vs IWF Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
IMCG vs IWF Cost
Overpaying IWF vs IMCG
$2,479
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
IMCG 0.06%
$1,270
IWF 0.18%
$3,749
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | IMCG | IWF | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $110 | $328 | $218 |
| 20 | $432 | $1,281 | $849 |
| 30 | $1,270 | $3,749 | $2,479 |
- 0.06%IMCG, cheaper
- 0.18%IWF
- Middle half of US Growth Index funds
- Median 0.18%
IMCG 9th cheapest of 35 funds
IWF 17th cheapest of 35 funds
IMCG vs IWF Dividends
- IMCG 0.67%, better
- IWF 0.37%
- IMCG $0.62
- IWF $0.43
- IMCG $0.19
- IWF $0.11
- IMCG Sep 15, 2026
- IWF Sep 15, 2026
- IMCG Sep 18, 2026
- IWF Sep 18, 2026
- IMCG Quarterly
- IWF Quarterly
Distribution history
IMCG vs IWF Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- IMCG
- IWF
Risk facts
- Volatility
- IMCG 16.6%, betterIWF 16.8%
- Return per unit of risk
- IMCG 0.97IWF 1.01, better
- Worst fall
- IMCG −35.1%IWF −32.7%, better
- Market sensitivity
- IMCG 1.14IWF 1.17
IMCG and IWF in the news
Popular comparisons
- 0.06% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.18% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.06% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.18% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.06% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.18% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.





