Two growth-focused exchange-traded funds—Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth ETF—offer investors a choice between large-cap leaders and small-cap pure-growth stocks. The key differences are cost, market-cap exposure, and risk profile, according to the ETFs’ published metrics and index methodologies.
At a time when growth strategies remain sensitive to equity-market momentum and interest-rate expectations, the fund construction and fee structure may matter more than investors typically expect—especially for long-term allocations.
Key takeaways
- Lower costs: Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF charges 0.06% in expense ratio versus 0.35% for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth ETF.
- Different market segments: Vanguard targets large-cap growth leaders, while Invesco concentrates on small-cap “pure growth” stocks.
- Performance and risk: Data shows Vanguard has delivered higher 5-year total returns and a smaller maximum drawdown than Invesco over the same window.
- Sector concentration matters: Vanguard’s portfolio is heavily tilted toward technology, while Invesco emphasizes healthcare alongside technology and industrials.
What differentiates the funds
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF provides exposure to established growth stocks in the Russell 1000, while the Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth ETF is designed to track the S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth Index, focusing on smaller companies with strong historical earnings and revenue expansion characteristics.
Because investors can experience very different volatility patterns across market caps, the “pure growth” small-cap approach can amplify drawdowns when corporate fundamentals or investor risk appetite weaken. By contrast, large-cap growth strategies often hold more mature companies, which can moderate—but not eliminate—downside moves during equity selloffs.
Cost and headline metrics
Expense ratios are a clear point of separation. The Vanguard ETF’s 0.06% expense ratio is materially lower than the 0.35% charged by the Invesco fund, based on the reported expense metrics. Both ETFs show a 0.40% trailing dividend yield.
On scale, the Vanguard fund has substantially larger assets under management at $54.8 billion, compared with $125.4 million for the Invesco ETF, according to the figures provided. Both ETFs also display similar but slightly different volatility measures, with beta reported at 1.16 for Vanguard and 1.12 for Invesco, where beta is calculated relative to the S&P 500 using five-year monthly returns.
Data also shows trailing returns over the past year of 20.30% for Vanguard versus 39.80% for Invesco, based on the stated “as of Jun. 17, 2026” timeframe.
Performance versus drawdown: what history suggests
Over a five-year period, the Vanguard ETF has posted less severe downside based on its reported maximum drawdown of (32.70%), compared with (38.30%) for the Invesco ETF.
The difference is also visible in reported cumulative growth: data shows that an initial $1,000 investment grew to $1,922 in Vanguard over five years, versus $1,366 for Invesco, using the provided total-return comparison.
Investors should interpret these figures as a reflection of how large-cap growth and small-cap pure growth have behaved across market regimes—particularly during periods when technology-led rallies and high-growth expectations tend to dominate equity performance.
Holdings mix and sector exposure
The Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF holds 394 stocks and is heavily concentrated in technology, with 51% of the portfolio allocated to the sector. It also shows exposure to communication services and consumer cyclicals, each at 13%, based on the reported sector breakdown.
The fund’s largest holdings include NVIDIA at 13.07%, Apple at 11.95%, and Microsoft at 8.96%, according to the provided weights. The ETF launched in 2010 and has paid $0.56 per share over the trailing 12 months, as stated in the article metrics.
Invesco’s ETF tracks 128 holdings and emphasizes healthcare at 23%, alongside technology at 18% and industrials at 16%. Top positions include ACM Research at 2.95%, Powell Industries at 2.15%, and StoneX Group at 1.90%, based on the reported figures. The fund launched in 2006 and has a trailing-12-month dividend of $0.27 per share, according to the provided data.
These sector and holdings differences matter because growth stocks can react unevenly to macro conditions such as changes in long-end interest rates, shifts in earnings expectations, and rotations between defensives and high-growth themes.
What to watch next
For investors comparing these two ETFs, upcoming catalysts center on the broader equity growth backdrop: corporate earnings across technology and healthcare, expectations for interest-rate policy, and market sensitivity to “growth at any price” versus steadier fundamental growth. Monitoring the funds’ ongoing sector allocations and how their drawdowns behave during equity corrections may be as important as headline returns over any single period.
