IWFV 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.

IWFV tracks the MSCI World Enhanced Value 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.

IWFV turned it into
£27,242
+10.54% per year on average · 20162025
IWFQ turned it into
£33,297
+12.78% per year on average · 20162025
Difference
−£6,055
IWFQ made more of the same money

IWFV 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
IWFV won
4
years
IWFQ won
9
years
YearIWFVIWFQWinner
2026 (so far)+33.94%+11.18%IWFV
2025+30.69%+7.40%IWFV
2024+6.85%+18.93%IWFQ
2023+13.02%+19.15%IWFQ
2022+0.95%-9.55%IWFV
2021+21.60%+25.17%IWFQ
2020-6.91%+10.93%IWFQ
2019+14.69%+25.86%IWFQ
2018-9.34%-2.34%IWFQ
2017+12.04%+12.47%IWFQ
2016+29.68%+26.01%IWFV
2015+1.33%+7.50%IWFQ
2014-34.90%-33.59%IWFQ

IWFV vs IWFQ in plain words

IWFV tracks the MSCI World Enhanced Value 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, IWFV finished the year ahead 4 times and IWFQ 9 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £27,242 in IWFV versus £33,297 in IWFQ by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested.

IWVL is the London (USD) listing and IS3S the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00BP3QZB59 — IWFV 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: IWFV vs IWFQ

FactIWFVIWFQ
FundiShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETFiShares Edge MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS ETF (Acc)
TracksMSCI World Enhanced Value IndexMSCI World Sector Neutral Quality Index
Yearly cost (TER)0.25%0.25%
DividendsAccumulating — dividends reinvestedAccumulating — dividends reinvested
Launched3 Oct 20143 Oct 2014
ISINIE00BP3QZB59IE00BP3QZ601

Frequently asked

Is IWFV or IWFQ better?

Across the 13 calendar years both funds were trading, IWFV finished the year ahead 4 times and IWFQ 9 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £27,242 in IWFV 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 IWFV and IWFQ?

IWFV tracks the MSCI World Enhanced Value 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 IWFV have become?

£10,000 invested in IWFV at the start of 2016 grew to £27,242 by the end of 2025, with dividends reinvested — an average of 10.5% per year.

Related comparisons

More head-to-heads featuring IWFV or IWFQ.