What exactly is the Russell 1000 index that these ETFs track?

The Russell 1000 index comprises approximately 1,000 of the largest publicly listed companies in the US stock market. It serves as a benchmark for large-cap equities, offering investors broad exposure to this market segment. IWB and VONE are exchange-traded funds designed to mimic the performance of this index. By holding a diversified basket of stocks representative of the Russell 1000, these funds allow investors to participate in the growth of major US companies. While the index methodology is standardised, fund documentation for IWB and VONE does not specify exact tracking nuances, so investors should note that the 'Index tracked' field is listed as 'not available' in the provided data, despite their names suggesting this focus.

How does an ETF's expense ratio impact long-term returns?

The expense ratio is an annual fee expressed as a percentage of your investment, covering the fund's operational costs. It directly reduces the net return to investors. For example, IWB charges a 0.15% expense ratio, while VONE charges 0.06%. This 0.09 percentage point difference may seem small, but it compounds over time. A lower fee means more of your capital remains invested, potentially enhancing long-term growth. It is crucial to consider these costs when comparing funds with similar holdings, as the fee drag can accumulate significantly over decades, affecting the final portfolio value even if the underlying stocks perform identically.

Why is net asset value (NAV) and trading volume relevant for ETFs?

Net assets reflect the total value of all securities held by the fund, which often correlates with liquidity and trading ease. IWB has $48.9 billion in net assets, suggesting high liquidity and potentially tighter bid-ask spreads due to larger trading volumes. VONE has $8.7 billion, which is still substantial but smaller, possibly leading to wider spreads during volatile market conditions. Liquidity matters because it affects how easily you can buy or sell shares at the quoted price. While both funds are traded on exchanges, higher assets generally provide more depth, reducing the risk of price discrepancies between the market price and the fund's internal value.

How do the top holdings of IWB and VONE compare?

Both IWB and VONE share the exact same top-ten holdings: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet Class A, Broadcom, Alphabet Class C, Meta Platforms, Micron Technology, and Tesla. This indicates very similar large-cap exposure. Minor differences exist in weighting: for instance, IWB holds NVIDIA at 7.36% compared to VONE's 7.26%, and Apple at 6.90% versus 6.46%. These small variations are typical in index-tracking funds and may result from slightly different rebalancing timings or methodologies. However, the core portfolio composition is nearly identical, meaning the fundamental market exposure for an investor is largely the same, with concentration in major tech and consumer discretionary firms.

What is the difference in dividend yield between the two funds?

IWB offers a dividend yield of 0.90%, while VONE provides a slightly higher yield of 0.99%. This difference of 0.09 percentage points is minimal but noteworthy for income-focused investors. Dividend yields are calculated based on recent distributions relative to the current share price. Both yields are relatively low compared to specific dividend-oriented funds, which is consistent with the large blend growth nature of the Russell 1000 index. Investors should understand that while VONE offers marginally more income, the primary driver of returns for both funds is likely capital appreciation from the underlying stock prices rather than dividends.

Which fund has a more established track record?

IWB was launched on May 15, 2000, giving it over two decades of operational history and a substantial asset base of $48.9 billion. In contrast, VONE started on September 20, 2010, with a longer maturity than many niche ETFs but still shorter than IWB. VONE has net assets of $8.7 billion. Both funds are mature vehicles for large-cap US exposure. The choice may depend on investor preference for an older fund with deeper liquidity (IWB) versus a newer but extremely low-cost alternative (VONE). The inception dates highlight that both funds have weathered multiple market cycles, providing historical context for their performance and stability.

How significant is the concentration risk in these funds?

Both IWB and VONE exhibit significant top-ten concentration, with their largest holdings heavily weighted in technology and consumer discretionary sectors. For IWB, NVIDIA and Apple each exceed six percent of the portfolio, and the top ten holdings collectively represent a substantial portion of the fund's assets. VONE mirrors this structure closely. While this concentration aligns with the large-cap growth segment of the Russell 1000, it means the funds' performance is highly sensitive to these specific companies. If tech stocks underperform, both funds will likely reflect that decline. Diversification within the broader portfolio is present, but the top-heavy nature is a key risk factor to understand.

What market segment do these ETFs primarily cover?

IWB and VONE are categorised as Large Blend ETFs, targeting the large-cap segment of the US equity market. They track an index representative of approximately 1,000 large companies, offering exposure to established firms with significant market capitalisations. This segment is often considered a core component of a US stock portfolio. While sector weights are not available in the provided data for either fund, the top holdings suggest a heavy lean towards Technology and Communication Services. Investors should recognise that large-cap stocks typically offer more stability than small-caps but may have slower growth rates compared to mid-caps or emerging markets.

How do economic conditions affect these large-cap funds?

Large-cap funds like IWB and VONE are sensitive to broad economic trends such as interest rate changes, inflation, and corporate earnings growth. Since they hold major US companies, their performance is tied to the overall health of the US economy. During economic expansions, these funds often perform well as large corporations report strong earnings. Conversely, during recessions, while they may be more resilient than small caps, they still face downward pressure. The specific impact depends on the sectors represented, which for these funds include significant technology and consumer weights. Understanding the macroeconomic context helps in interpreting the funds' historical and potential future performance relative to other market segments.

What information is missing from the standard data sheets for these funds?

For both IWB and VONE, critical details such as the exact 'Index tracked' methodology and specific 'Sector weights' are listed as not available in the provided ground truth. While the names imply tracking of the Russell 1000, the precise internal mechanics of how the index is calculated or replicated are not detailed here. Additionally, sector allocations are not specified, although top holdings imply a tech-heavy lean. Investors should consult the official fund prospectuses or issuer websites for comprehensive sector breakdowns and detailed index tracking notes, as these omissions prevent a full comparative analysis of risk diversification across industries.

Is there a difference in how dividends are distributed?

The provided data specifies the dividend yields (0.90% for IWB and 0.99% for VONE) but does not detail the frequency or method of distribution (e.g., quarterly vs. monthly, reinvestment options). Typically, ETFs distributing dividends from underlying holdings follow a set schedule, often quarterly, but specifics vary by issuer. Without data on distribution frequency or tax treatment nuances, investors should assume standard practices for their respective issuers (iShares and Vanguard) and verify current policies directly. The yield difference is small, but the timing and compounding method of dividends can affect total return calculations over short periods.

How should beginners interpret the 'not available' data fields?

When fields like 'Index tracked' or 'Sector weights' are marked as 'not available' in comparison tools, it means the specific data point was not retrieved or published in the current source dataset, not necessarily that the fund lacks these attributes. For IWB and VONE, the index is widely known to be the Russell 1000, and sector weights exist but are not listed here. Beginners should not view this as a lack of transparency by the fund but as a data completeness issue in the comparison tool. It highlights the importance of consulting primary sources like official fund websites for complete and current portfolio details before making informed decisions.

IWB vs VONE

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

Compare iShares Russell 1000 ETF (IWB) and Vanguard Russell 1000 ETF (VONE). This page reviews fees, holdings, dividends and how each fund tracks its market. IWB has a 0.15% expense ratio versus VONE at 0.06%, with similar top holdings. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

IWB

Metric

VONE

0.15%

Expense Ratio

0.06%

0.90%

Dividend Yield

0.99%

$48.94B

Net Assets

$8.68B

1,028

Holdings

1,031

May 15, 2000

Inception Date

Sep 20, 2010

–

Index Tracked

–

Large Blend

Fund Category

Large Blend

VONE costs about $9.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	IWB	VONE
NVDANVIDIA Corporation	7.36%	7.26%
AAPLApple Inc.	6.90%	6.46%
MSFTMicrosoft Corporation	5.20%	5.31%
AMZNAmazon.com, Inc.	3.49%	3.55%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc.	2.89%	2.79%
AVGOBroadcom Inc.	2.36%	2.43%
GOOGAlphabet Inc.	2.32%	2.25%
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.	2.08%	1.77%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.	1.62%	1.52%
TSLATesla, Inc.	1.51%	1.52%

Discover More Comparisons

IWB vs VOO

Compare IWB and VOO ETFs. Review expense ratios, top holdings, dividend yields and market tracking differences. Educational analysis of cost and portfolio.

IWB vs IWM

Compare IWB and IWM ETFs on fees, holdings, dividends and tracking. Explore large-cap versus small-cap exposure differences and key fund metrics.

Investment Analysis

IWB

Pros

Established 2000 with $48.9 billion assets, ensuring robust liquidity and trading depth.
Tracks the Russell 1000 benchmark, delivering exposure to large-cap US equities.
Dividend yield of 0.90% provides a steady income stream for investors.

Considerations

Higher expense ratio of 0.15% compared to lower-cost Russell 1000 peers.
Significant top-ten concentration with NVIDIA and Apple each exceeding six percent.
Fund documentation does not specify the exact index tracking methodology or sector weights.

VONE

Pros

Exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.06% reduces drag on long-term returns.
Dividend yield of 0.99% is slightly higher than the comparable large-cap fund.
Launched in 2010, it offers a mature vehicle for large-cap US exposure.

Considerations

Net assets of $8.7 billion are substantially smaller than the main competitor.
Potential for wider bid-ask spreads due to lower trading volume.
Public data does not confirm specific sector allocations or tracking methods.

About IWB and VONE

IWB (IWB)

The iShares Russell 1000 ETF is a Large Blend fund designed to provide broad exposure to large-cap U.S. stocks. With net assets of approximately USD 48.94 billion and 1,028 holdings, it offers investors a diversified way to track the performance of the broader large-cap market. The fund has an expense ratio of 0.15%, making it a cost-effective option for those seeking wide market participation. Its current dividend yield stands at 0.90%. Since its inception on May 15, 2000, the fund has aimed to capture the growth potential of established companies across various sectors. Investors should note that values can rise and fall, and past performance does not guarantee future results.

VONE (VONE)

The Vanguard Russell 1000 ETF aims to provide investors with exposure to large-cap stocks listed on U.S. exchanges. By tracking a broad index of these major companies, it offers a way to diversify holdings within the United States' largest market capitalisations. With an expense ratio of 0.06%, it is designed to be cost-effective for long-term investors. The fund currently holds approximately 1,031 securities and reported net assets of USD 8.68 billion as of the latest verified facts. It falls into the Large Blend category, encompassing both growth and value-oriented large-cap stocks. Investors should note that while this fund offers significant diversification, share values can fluctuate, and returns are not guaranteed. The dividend yield is listed at 0.99%, providing some income potential, though this can vary with market conditions and corporate policies. As with any investment, it is essential to consider your personal financial situation and risk tolerance before deciding to invest in this or any other fund.

Buy IWB or VONE 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.

IWB vs VONE

Fund Snapshot

Discover More Comparisons

IWB vs VOO

IWB vs IWM

Investment Analysis

IWB

Pros

Considerations

VONE

Pros

Considerations

About IWB and VONE

Buy IWB or VONE in Nemo

Zero Commission

Trusted & Regulated

6% Interest on Cash

Frequently asked questions

What exactly is the Russell 1000 index that these ETFs track?

How does an ETF's expense ratio impact long-term returns?

Why is net asset value (NAV) and trading volume relevant for ETFs?

How do the top holdings of IWB and VONE compare?

What is the difference in dividend yield between the two funds?

Which fund has a more established track record?

How significant is the concentration risk in these funds?

What market segment do these ETFs primarily cover?

How do economic conditions affect these large-cap funds?

What information is missing from the standard data sheets for these funds?

Is there a difference in how dividends are distributed?

How should beginners interpret the 'not available' data fields?

Fund Snapshot

About IWB and VONE

Discover More Comparisons

IWB vs VOO

IWB vs IWM