What exactly is a mid-cap growth ETF and how does it differ from other equity funds?

A mid-cap growth ETF, such as IWP or VOT, invests in companies with medium market capitalisations that are expected to grow earnings faster than the broader market. Unlike large-cap value funds which focus on established, slower-growing firms, these ETFs target dynamic companies, often in technology or consumer sectors. The growth mandate means the fund managers seek appreciation rather than immediate income. Both IWP and VOT fall into this category, aiming to capture the upside potential of mid-sized companies while managing the volatility inherent in this specific market segment.

How do expense ratios function and why do they vary between ETFs?

The expense ratio is the annual fee charged by the fund provider to manage the ETF, deducted from its assets. It covers administration, management, and operational costs. In this comparison, IWP charges 0.23% while VOT charges 0.05%. This difference reflects varying business models; VOT's significantly lower fee stems from its scale and operational efficiencies. A lower expense ratio does not guarantee better returns, but it reduces the drag on performance, meaning more of the fund's gross return is retained for investors.

What is the impact of the fee difference between IWP and VOT over a long period?

With IWP having an expense ratio of 0.23% and VOT at 0.05%, there is a 0.18 percentage point difference. Over ten years, assuming identical gross returns, this fee gap compounds. For every £100,000 invested, the cumulative cost difference is substantial, as the lower-fee fund retains more capital for compounding. While market movements usually outweigh fee impacts in the short term, the persistent drag of higher fees on long-term wealth accumulation makes the 0.05% structure of VOT structurally more cost-efficient for buy-and-hold strategies compared to IWP.

How similar are the portfolios of IWP and VOT regarding top holdings?

Both ETFs share three top-10 holdings: NET, HOOD, and DDOG. However, the weighting and breadth of holdings differ. IWP's top positions include SNOW (3.25%) and NET (3.02%), whereas VOT leads with VRT (2.23%) and HWM (2.20%). This indicates that while there is overlap in high-growth tech and financial stocks, the specific selection within the mid-cap growth universe varies. Investors may see distinct performance patterns because VOT offers broader exposure to its own set of top holdings compared to IWP's concentration.

Which fund typically targets an income-focused investor based on dividend yields?

While neither is primarily an income fund, VOT has a dividend yield of 0.61%, which is higher than IWP's 0.38%. Yield-focused investors might slightly prefer VOT for its marginally greater income potential. However, both yields are relatively low, reflecting the nature of growth-oriented companies that typically reinvest earnings for expansion rather than distributing cash. The difference of 0.23 percentage points is modest. Investors should not rely on either for substantial income, but VOT provides slightly more cash distribution relative to its share price.

How do the operational track records of these mid-cap ETFs compare?

IWP has a longer operating history, launched in July 2001, providing over twenty-five years of market experience. VOT, with an inception date of August 2006, has a shorter track record of roughly two decades. A longer history can offer more data points for analysing performance through various market cycles, though it also means IWP has been subject to older management methodologies. Both funds have significant assets, $19.3 billion and $19.6 billion respectively, indicating strong market adoption and liquidity.

How do IWP and VOT compare in terms of concentration risk?

Both ETFs exhibit concentration risk in their top holdings. IWP has notable exposure to SNOW, NET, and HOOD, with a top holding weight of 3.25%. VOT concentrates in VRT, HWM, and NET, with a top holding of 2.23%. While VOT's top holdings are weighted slightly lower, the overlap in stocks like NET, HOOD, and DDOG suggests both funds may be susceptible to similar sector-specific shocks, particularly in technology and mid-cap financial services.

Are there transparency issues regarding how these funds track their indices?

A critical data point for both IWP and VOT is that the specific index tracking methodology is marked as 'not available' in the current dataset. Without clarity on whether these funds use full replication or optimised sampling to match their benchmarks, investors face uncertainty about exact tracking error. However, as established ETFs from iShares and Vanguard respectively, they adhere to strict regulatory frameworks. The lack of specific methodology disclosure in this comparison requires reliance on historical performance data rather than theoretical replication accuracy.

What should a beginner consider regarding liquidity when choosing between IWP and VOT?

Liquidity is largely determined by net assets. IWP holds $19.3 billion and VOT holds $19.6 billion. Both figures represent substantial scale, ensuring tight bid-ask spreads and minimal price impact during trading. For retail investors, this difference is negligible in practice; both funds are highly liquid. You are unlikely to encounter difficulties buying or selling either fund due to size. Therefore, practical trading execution is comparable, and fees or specific portfolio composition should be the primary differentiators.

What is the educational disclaimer for this ETF comparison?

This comparison is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Past performance, including the expense ratios, dividend yields, and inception dates of IWP and VOT, does not guarantee future results. Market conditions, index composition, and management strategies can change. Investors should conduct independent due diligence, consult with a qualified financial professional, and consider their own risk tolerance and investment objectives before making any decisions regarding these or other exchange-traded funds.

IWP vs VOT

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

Compare IWP and VOT, both Mid-Cap Growth ETFs. IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio and $19.3 billion in net assets. VOT has a 0.05% expense ratio and $19.6 billion. Both track mid-cap growth, with shared top-10 holdings NET, HOOD, and DDOG. This page details fees, holdings, dividends, and market tracking. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

IWP

Metric

VOT

0.23%

Expense Ratio

0.05%

0.38%

Dividend Yield

0.61%

$19.26B

Net Assets

$19.59B

275

Holdings

125

Jul 17, 2001

Inception Date

Aug 17, 2006

–

Index Tracked

–

Mid-Cap Growth

Fund Category

Mid-Cap Growth

VOT costs about $18.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	IWP	VOT
NETCloudflare, Inc.	3.02%	2.19%
HOODRobinhood Markets, Inc.	2.23%	1.86%
DDOGDatadog, Inc.	2.21%	1.76%

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.

IVOG vs VOT

Compare IVOG and VOT on fees, dividends, holdings, and tracking approach. IVOG costs 0.10%, holds $1.6 billion; VOT costs 0.05%, holds $19.6 billion.

VO vs VOT

Compare VO and VOT ETFs. Review expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields, top holdings and index tracking differences to inform your research.

Investment Analysis

IWP

Pros

Its 0.23% expense ratio reflects a mid-tier cost structure for a Russell mid-cap growth ETF.
With $19.3 billion in net assets, it enjoys substantial scale that supports institutional trading.
Launched in July 2001, it has a long operating history, exceeding twenty-five years of market experience.

Considerations

The fund’s index tracking methodology is not available, limiting clarity on precise replication.
A dividend yield of 0.38% is relatively low, potentially reducing income appeal for yield-focused investors.
Concentration in SNOW, NET, and HOOD means top-10 holdings weight may increase idiosyncratic risk.

VOT

Pros

Its 0.05% expense ratio offers a significantly lower cost structure than comparable mid-cap growth ETFs.
The fund has accumulated $19.6 billion in net assets, indicating strong market adoption and liquidity.
A dividend yield of 0.61% provides slightly higher income distribution potential compared to its peers.

Considerations

The fund’s index tracking methodology is not available, leaving uncertainty on exact replication approach.
Inception in August 2006 means it has a shorter operational track record than older peers.
Top-10 holdings include VRT, HWM, and NET, suggesting moderate concentration risk in specific sectors.

About IWP and VOT

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.

VOT (VOT)

The Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF (VOT) offers investors access to a diversified portfolio of US mid-cap companies, specifically those with growth characteristics. This fund is managed passively, aiming to track a mid-cap growth benchmark. With a very low expense ratio of 0.05%, it stands out as a cost-efficient way to include mid-cap growth stocks in a portfolio. The fund holds approximately 125 stocks, providing a balanced exposure to companies that may have higher growth potential than large-cap firms but are typically more established than small-cap ones. Launched in August 2006, it manages substantial net assets of USD 19.59 billion. While it pays a dividend yield of 0.61%, investors should note that the primary objective is capital appreciation through stock growth. As with any equity investment, values can fluctuate, and returns are not guaranteed.

Buy IWP or VOT 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.

IWP vs VOT

Fund Snapshot