IWFM vs IWFQ: which ETF won each year?

Yearly returns side by side, one winner per year — dividends included, priced as you'd actually buy them.

Every figure here is in pounds — what you'd actually pocket buying on the London Stock Exchange. Fund fact sheets usually headline returns in US dollars, which can look very different in years when the pound moves against the dollar. Here's the full story, year by year.

IWFM tracks the MSCI World Momentum IndexIWFQ tracks the MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index

What did the last 10 years do to £10,000?

You invest £10,000 at the start of the window and touch nothing — dividends reinvested, the running year not counted.

IWFM turned it into
£39,306
+14.67% per year on average · 20162025
IWFQ turned it into
£33,297
+12.78% per year on average · 20162025
Difference
+£6,009
IWFM made more of the same money

IWFM vs IWFQ, year by year

Calendar-year total returns (dividends included) side by side, and who took the crown each year. A dash means the fund did not exist yet.

Years compared
13
where both funds were trading
IWFM won
9
years
IWFQ won
4
years
YearIWFMIWFQWinner
2026 (so far)+29.24%+11.18%IWFM
2025+12.72%+7.40%IWFM
2024+32.62%+18.93%IWFM
2023+5.85%+19.15%IWFQ
2022-8.21%-9.55%IWFM
2021+15.58%+25.17%IWFQ
2020+24.16%+10.93%IWFM
2019+23.25%+25.86%IWFQ
2018+1.62%-2.34%IWFM
2017+20.40%+12.47%IWFM
2016+25.05%+26.01%IWFQ
2015+8.82%+7.50%IWFM
2014-32.51%-33.59%IWFM

IWFM vs IWFQ in plain words

IWFM tracks the MSCI World Momentum Index while IWFQ follows the MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. Both funds charge 0.25% a year in running costs.

Both are accumulating funds: dividends are reinvested inside the fund and show up as a higher share price, never as a payout. Across the 13 calendar years both funds were trading, IWFM finished the year ahead 9 times and IWFQ 4 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £39,306 in IWFM versus £33,297 in IWFQ by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested.

IWMO is the London (USD) listing and IS3R the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00BP3QZ825 — IWFM is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

IWQU is the London (USD) listing and IS3Q the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00BP3QZ601 — IWFQ is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

Fund facts: IWFM vs IWFQ

FactIWFMIWFQ
FundiShares Edge MSCI World Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (Acc)iShares Edge MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS ETF (Acc)
TracksMSCI World Momentum IndexMSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index
Yearly cost (TER)0.25%0.25%
DividendsAccumulating — dividends reinvestedAccumulating — dividends reinvested
Launched3 Oct 20143 Oct 2014
ISINIE00BP3QZ825IE00BP3QZ601

Frequently asked

Is IWFM or IWFQ better?

Across the 13 calendar years both funds were trading, IWFM finished the year ahead 9 times and IWFQ 4 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £39,306 in IWFM versus £33,297 in IWFQ by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested. Past returns don't promise future ones — but this is what actually happened.

What is the difference between IWFM and IWFQ?

IWFM tracks the MSCI World Momentum Index while IWFQ follows the MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. Both funds charge 0.25% a year in running costs. Both are accumulating funds: dividends are reinvested inside the fund and show up as a higher share price, never as a payout.

What would £10,000 in IWFM have become?

£10,000 invested in IWFM at the start of 2016 grew to £39,306 by the end of 2025, with dividends reinvested — an average of 14.7% per year.

Related comparisons

More head-to-heads featuring IWFM or IWFQ.