What do the expense ratios of IMCG and IWP mean for an investor?

IMCG charges 0.06%, while IWP charges 0.23%. The expense ratio is an annual fee deducted from the fund's assets. A lower ratio, like IMCG's, means less cost dragging on returns over time. This 0.17 percentage point difference might seem small, but compounding can make it significant for long-term holders. Investors should note these costs when comparing funds with similar strategies.

How do the net asset sizes of these ETFs compare?

IWP has $19.3 billion in net assets, making it substantially larger than IMCG, which has $4.0 billion. Generally, larger funds like IWP may offer greater liquidity and tighter bid-ask spreads for trading. However, IMCG's size is still considered substantial enough for most institutional and retail investors, suggesting adequate liquidity for typical trading needs.

What does 'Mid-Cap Growth' mean in the context of these funds?

Mid-Cap Growth refers to companies with medium market capitalisation expected to grow revenues and earnings faster than the overall market. Both IMCG and IWP fall into this category. They typically invest in established companies that are still in an expansion phase, balancing growth potential with somewhat more stability than small-cap firms.

What index do IMCG and IWP track?

The provided data does not specify the exact index tracked by either IMCG or IWP, listing it as 'not available'. Investors should check the official fund prospectus for precise index details. Typically, funds with similar names track indices focused on mid-cap growth stocks, but without specific index names, a direct comparison of their benchmark methodology is limited.

Which fund has a higher dividend yield?

IMCG has a dividend yield of 0.65%, compared to IWP's 0.38%. A higher yield suggests that IMCG distributes more income relative to its share price. However, mid-cap growth funds typically prioritise capital appreciation over income. The difference reflects varying payout ratios or portfolio composition rather than a fundamental shift in strategy.

How much overlap is there in the top holdings of IMCG and IWP?

There is significant overlap in the top ten holdings. Five stocks are shared: SNOW, NET, HOOD, LITE, and DDOG. However, the weightings differ. For instance, SNOW is 1.55% in IMCG but 3.25% in IWP. This indicates that while they hold similar companies, the level of concentration in specific growth leaders varies between the two funds.

What is the difference in concentration between IMCG and IWP?

IWP shows higher concentration in its top holdings. For example, its top stock SNOW is weighted at 3.25%, whereas IMCG's top stock DELL is 1.58%. Higher concentration in IWP means greater exposure to specific stocks like SNOW and NET, potentially boosting returns if they outperform, but also increasing idiosyncratic risk if they underperform.

How might sector exposure differ between these two ETFs?

Sector weights are not available for either fund in the provided data. Without this information, it is difficult to precisely compare their sector allocation. However, the difference in top holdings suggests varying exposures. IWP includes SPG, MPC, TRGP, and TER, which are not in IMCG's top ten, implying different sector tilts despite the mid-cap growth label.

Which fund is more established based on inception dates?

IWP was launched on 17 July 2001, making it older and more established than IMCG, which started on 28 June 2004. An earlier inception date allows for a longer performance history, which some investors might prefer for evaluating consistency, although both have operated for nearly two decades.

How do these ETFs distribute dividends to shareholders?

ETFs like IMCG and IWP typically distribute dividends to shareholders on a regular schedule, often quarterly. The distribution rate depends on the income generated by the underlying holdings. Investors receive cash or can choose to reinvest these distributions to buy more shares, potentially accelerating compound growth over time through dividend reinvestment.

Which fund aligns better with a low-cost investing goal?

IMCG, with a 0.06% expense ratio, aligns better with a goal of minimising investment costs. Over time, lower fees can preserve more wealth compared to higher-cost alternatives like IWP, which charges 0.23%. Investors prioritising cost efficiency in a mid-cap growth strategy may find IMCG's fee structure more attractive for long-term accumulation.

What are the key differences for active traders?

Active traders might prefer IWP due to its larger $19.3 billion net asset base, which usually provides deeper liquidity and tighter bid-ask spreads compared to IMCG's $4.0 billion. While IMCG offers lower fees, the trading cost implications and ease of executing large orders often favour the more liquid IWP for high-frequency or large-volume strategies.

IMCG vs IWP

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare the iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) and the iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). This page examines their fees, holdings, dividends and how each fund tracks its market, including expense ratios of 0.06% and 0.23% respectively. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

IMCG

Metric

IWP

0.06%

Expense Ratio

0.23%

0.65%

Dividend Yield

0.38%

$3.99B

Net Assets

$19.26B

263

Holdings

275

Jun 28, 2004

Inception Date

Jul 17, 2001

–

Index Tracked

–

Mid-Cap Growth

Fund Category

Mid-Cap Growth

IMCG costs about $17.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	IMCG	IWP
SNOWSnowflake Inc.	1.55%	3.25%
NETCloudflare, Inc.	1.43%	3.02%
HOODRobinhood Markets, Inc.	1.29%	2.23%
LITELumentum Holdings Inc.	1.14%	2.11%
DDOGDatadog, Inc.	1.05%	2.21%

Discover More Comparisons

IMCG vs VOT

Compare IMCG vs VOT mid-cap growth ETFs. Review 0.06% vs 0.05% expense ratios, holdings, dividends, and tracking details to assess fund differences.

Investment Analysis

IMCG

Pros

IMCG offers a low 0.06% expense ratio, which reduces the drag on long-term net returns for investors.
The fund has a substantial net asset base of $4.0 billion, indicating adequate liquidity for most institutional and retail investors.
Its 0.65% dividend yield provides a modest income stream relative to typical mid-cap growth funds focused on capital appreciation.

Considerations

The fund's inception date of June 28, 2004, is relatively recent compared to some older mid-cap growth ETFs.
IMCG lacks published sector weights, limiting transparency for investors seeking detailed exposure analysis beyond the top holdings.
Top holdings like SNOW and NET have lower concentration weights than in IWP, potentially diluting the impact of high-conviction growth stocks.

IWP

Pros

IWP is one of the most established mid-cap growth ETFs, with an inception date of July 17, 2001.
The fund's $19.3 billion net asset base ensures deep liquidity and tight bid-ask spreads for active traders.
Higher concentration in growth leaders like SNOW and NET allows for greater potential upside if these stocks outperform.

Considerations

IWP charges a 0.23% expense ratio, which is significantly higher than the 0.06% fee for comparable ETFs like IMCG.
The fund's 0.38% dividend yield is lower than IMCG's, reflecting a stronger focus on capital appreciation over income.
Greater concentration in a few large positions increases idiosyncratic risk if top holdings like SNOW or NET underperform.

About IMCG and IWP

IMCG (IMCG)

The iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) offers investors a strategic way to access mid-sized companies in the United States that are focused on growth. With net assets of USD 3.99 billion and holding 263 unique companies, this fund provides broad diversification across the mid-cap growth sector. Investors might find the expense ratio of 0.06% appealing due to its low cost, which can help preserve returns over time. The fund has a dividend yield of 0.65%, reflecting its focus on capital appreciation rather than income generation. Launched in June 2004, IMCG benefits from a long operational history, allowing it to navigate various market cycles. While mid-cap stocks can offer higher growth potential than large-caps, they may also come with increased volatility. This ETF is suitable for investors looking to complement their portfolio with exposure to established companies poised for future expansion, keeping in mind that all values can rise and fall.

IWP (IWP)

The iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) offers investors exposure to mid-capitalisation companies with strong growth characteristics. This fund aims to track the performance of mid-cap growth stocks, which are typically larger than small caps but smaller than mega-caps. Mid-caps often present a balance between the higher growth potential of smaller companies and the stability of larger firms. With an expense ratio of 0.23%, the fund is relatively cost-effective for an actively managed-like strategy, though it is an index-tracking ETF. It holds 275 companies, providing diversified exposure within the mid-cap growth sector. The fund has a dividend yield of 0.38%, indicating a focus on capital appreciation rather than income. Inception was in 2001, giving it a long track record. Remember, as with all equity investments, values can rise and fall, and past performance is not indicative of future results.

Buy IMCG or IWP in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

IMCG vs IWP

Fund Snapshot

Discover More Comparisons

IMCG vs VOT

Investment Analysis

IMCG

Pros

Considerations

IWP

Pros

Considerations

About IMCG and IWP

Buy IMCG or IWP in Nemo

Zero Commission

Trusted & Regulated

6% Interest on Cash

Frequently asked questions

What do the expense ratios of IMCG and IWP mean for an investor?

How do the net asset sizes of these ETFs compare?

What does 'Mid-Cap Growth' mean in the context of these funds?

What index do IMCG and IWP track?

Which fund has a higher dividend yield?

How much overlap is there in the top holdings of IMCG and IWP?

What is the difference in concentration between IMCG and IWP?

How might sector exposure differ between these two ETFs?

Which fund is more established based on inception dates?

How do these ETFs distribute dividends to shareholders?

Which fund aligns better with a low-cost investing goal?

What are the key differences for active traders?

Fund Snapshot

About IMCG and IWP

Discover More Comparisons

IMCG vs VOT