Comparing IJT and RZG: Evaluating Two Small-Cap Growth ETFs' Costs, Compositions, and Performance
January 10, 2026
Business News

Comparing IJT and RZG: Evaluating Two Small-Cap Growth ETFs' Costs, Compositions, and Performance

A detailed analysis of expense ratios, portfolio structures, and returns highlights key differences between broad growth and pure growth ETFs in the small-cap segment.

Summary

Investors interested in small-cap growth stocks can choose between the iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Growth ETF (IJT) and the Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth ETF (RZG). While both focus on the growth sector within small caps, RZG employs a stringent growth-based criterion that narrows its holdings significantly compared to the broader IJT. This analysis examines differences in underlying methodologies, costs, performance, dividend yields, portfolio makeup, and risk profiles to clarify their distinct investment propositions.

Key Points

IJT has a lower expense ratio (0.18%) and a larger asset base ($6.29 billion) compared to RZG’s 0.35% expense ratio and $104.83 million AUM.
IJT offers broader diversification with 342 holdings and a higher dividend yield (0.9%) versus RZG’s 135 holdings and 0.36% yield.
RZG outperformed IJT over the past year but lagged behind IJT’s 5-year total return, highlighting differences in time horizon performance.

In the realm of small-cap growth investing, the iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Growth ETF (IJT) and the Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth ETF (RZG) present two compelling, yet distinct, options for exposure to this market segment. Both funds focus on smaller companies exhibiting growth characteristics, but they diverge in their underlying construction methodology, expense structure, portfolio composition, and recent performance.

Cost Structures and Fund Size

The expense ratio constitutes an important factor in fund selection. IJT offers a more affordable expense ratio at 0.18%, less than half of RZG’s 0.35%. This cost difference can materially influence long-term net returns for investors. Additionally, IJT has a substantially larger asset base, managing approximately $6.29 billion, signaling greater liquidity and investor interest compared to RZG’s $104.83 million in assets under management.

Performance Records and Yields

Reviewing returns over a one-year horizon as of January 7, 2025, RZG has generated a stronger gain at 12.99%, outpacing IJT’s 5.75%. This may appeal to those targeting more recent momentum. However, the longer-term perspective reveals a contrasting picture. Over five years, IJT grew $1,000 to approximately $1,266, while RZG reached $1,199, indicating superior cumulative returns for the broader growth approach over time.

Dividend distributions further differentiate the funds. IJT affords investors a higher yield of 0.9%, more than double RZG’s 0.36%. Investors prioritizing income alongside growth might prefer IJT for this reason.

Volatility and Risk Metrics

When assessing volatility relative to the S&P 500 via five-year beta figures, IJT and RZG exhibit similar risk profiles, with betas of 1.18 and 1.15 respectively, reflecting moderately higher price fluctuations than the broader market. Nonetheless, examining maximum drawdown over five years provides more insight into risk tolerance. IJT’s peak-to-trough loss was 29.24%, notably less severe than RZG’s 38.33%. This suggests that the broad-based growth ETF has experienced less downside volatility during adverse market periods than the pure growth option.

Portfolio Composition and Strategy

IJT encompasses 342 individual small-cap growth stocks, thereby presenting broad diversification across multiple industries. Its leading sector exposures are technology (20%), industrials (19%), and healthcare (17%). The fund's top holdings—Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Armstrong World Industries, and InterDigital—each represent less than 1.4% of total assets, dispersing concentration risk. Notably, IJT boasts a 25-year track record, making it one of the oldest ETFs dedicated to small-cap growth companies.

Conversely, RZG employs a "pure growth" methodology based on the S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth Index. This index applies a growth scoring system that evaluates sales growth, the ratio of earnings change relative to price, and price momentum to identify companies exhibiting robust growth traits. Firms failing to meet these strict criteria are excluded, condensing RZG’s portfolio to only 135 stocks, fewer than one-third of IJT’s count.

RZG holds a more significant weighting in healthcare at 27%. Its largest holdings include Progyny, ACM Research, and ARMOUR Residential REIT, with the top stock alone comprising about 1.6% of assets. This concentrated approach reflects the fund’s focus on stocks with pronounced growth metrics but may expose investors to sector or company-specific risk inherent in a narrower portfolio.

Understanding Pure Growth and Investment Implications

The concept of "pure growth" ETFs is central to distinguishing RZG’s approach. By relying on quantitative growth scores derived from measuring sales increases, earnings momentum relative to price, and price momentum over time, RZG selects a subset of small-cap growth stocks presumed to exhibit stronger growth traits than those in broad growth indexes.

While pure growth ETFs theoretically aim to outperform traditional growth funds, actual results can vary. RZG’s recent one-year outperformance demonstrates its potential to capture momentum-driven gains, yet over a five-year span, IJT’s broader exposure delivered higher cumulative returns. This contrast underscores the importance of considering investment horizons and risk tolerance when choosing between these ETFs.

Investor Considerations

Investors seeking short-term capital appreciation and willing to accept higher portfolio concentration might find RZG’s pure growth focus attractive, especially given its recent one-year performance advantage. In contrast, those prioritizing lower expense ratios, broader diversification, higher dividend income, and a proven long-term track record may lean toward IJT.

Ultimately, understanding each fund’s strategy and risk-return profile is critical. The broader diversification of IJT may contribute to reduced drawdowns and may be more suitable for investors seeking stability alongside growth. Meanwhile, RZG’s curated portfolio might appeal to investors focused on aggressive growth signals within small caps despite elevated volatility.


Glossary of Key Terms

  • Expense Ratio: The annual management fee as a percentage of assets charged by a fund to cover operating costs.
  • Assets Under Management (AUM): Total market value of all investment assets held within a fund.
  • Small-cap: Companies with relatively small market capitalizations, typically ranging between $300 million and $2 billion.
  • ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund): A fund traded on stock exchanges, holding diversified assets such as stocks or bonds.
  • Drawdown: The largest observed loss in value from a peak to a trough during a specific period.
  • Dividend Yield: Annual dividend payments expressed as a percentage of the fund’s price.
  • Beta: A statistical measure of a fund’s volatility relative to the broader market (S&P 500).
  • Sector Weight: Percentage of fund assets allocated to a specific industry sector.
  • Pure Growth Methodology: An index or fund construction technique selecting stocks with the strongest sales, earnings, and momentum-based growth metrics.
Risks
  • RZG’s narrower portfolio concentration increases exposure to sector and individual stock risks, particularly in healthcare.
  • Higher expense ratio in RZG may reduce net returns over the long term relative to IJT’s lower costs.
  • Both funds have beta greater than 1, indicating greater volatility than the overall market, which may not suit risk-averse investors.
Disclosure
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Investors should conduct their own research or consult a financial advisor before making investment decisions.
Search Articles
Category
Business News

Business News

Ticker Sentiment
IJT - neutral RZG - neutral
Related Articles
Why Retirement Savings Remain Stagnant and How to Address Common Pitfalls

Many individuals find themselves concerned about the insufficient growth of their retirement account...

Comparing Precious Metals ETFs: Cost Efficiency of IAU Versus the Performance of SLV

Investors evaluating precious metals ETFs often compare the iShares Silver Trust (SLV) and iShares G...

Maximizing Your 401(k): Understanding the Power of Employer Matching

Overestimating investment returns can jeopardize retirement savings. While it's prudent to plan cons...

Strategic Stress Testing of a Retirement Tax Plan with $1.8 Million in Savings at Age 58

A 58-year-old nearing retirement with $1.8 million across various accounts assessed the robustness o...

Adjusting to Retirement: The Unexpected Challenge of Transitioning from Work to Freedom

Retirement is often portrayed as a period of leisure and freedom, but many retirees encounter unexpe...

Amazon's Investment Propels Beta Technologies Stock in After-Hours Trading

Beta Technologies Inc, an aerospace company specializing in electric aircraft and propulsion systems...