The decade value is said to have won
Growth vs Value, 2000 to 2010
The 2000s are usually cited as the decade value beat growth decisively. Run as an actual contribution plan, the margin is much narrower than that reputation implies, and the drawdown column points the opposite way.
#What this plan actually returned
These are real results, not estimates. We ran $10,000 up front plus $500 a month from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2010 (10.0 years), with dividends reinvested, against actual daily closing prices for each fund.
| Ticker | Invested | Final value | Total return | Ann. return | Worst drop |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IVW | $67,500 | $70,666 | +4.69% | +0.83% | -57.33% |
| IVE | $67,500 | $71,317 | +5.65% | +1.00% | -61.32% |
Ann. return is the internal rate of return (IRR), which accounts for how long each individual contribution was invested, so it is lower than the headline total return on a plan that kept adding money. Worst drop is the deepest peak-to-trough decline in the fund itself during this window, measured on daily closes.
One or more funds here began trading after the requested start date, so its run begins at inception instead. That is why the invested totals are lower than a full-window plan would be.
Pre-tax and excluding brokerage commissions. See How It Works for the full methodology, or re-run this exact comparison with your own numbers.
#Value won, and it was close
On identical contributions of $67,500, IVE finished at roughly $71,300 and IVW at roughly $70,700. The difference is about $650, or roughly two tenths of a percentage point of annualized return.
That is a real result but a thin one. The popular version of this decade has value comprehensively defeating growth, and for a lump sum invested at the March 2000 peak that description is closer to accurate. For someone contributing steadily through the whole period, the two styles landed in almost the same place, and both landed badly.
#The drawdown column reverses the story
If value were reliably the defensive style, its worst decline should be shallower. It was not. IVE fell about 61 percent at its worst; IVW fell about 57 percent.
The dates explain it. IVE’s worst window ran from October 9, 2007 to March 9, 2009, the financial crisis. Value indexes carry heavy weightings in banks, insurers, and other financial companies, which is exactly where 2008 did its damage. The style that protected investors in 2000 was the style at the center of the next crisis.
IVW’s drawdown window is the more striking one: July 17, 2000 to March 9, 2009. That is not a crash, it is nearly nine years during which the fund never reclaimed its prior peak. Growth investors did not experience a sharp loss followed by recovery. They experienced most of a decade underwater.
#What these funds actually hold
IVW(iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF) holds the portion of the S&P 500 classified as growth, using measures such as sales growth and earnings change relative to price. In 2000 that meant heavy technology and telecommunications weighting, which is why the dot-com collapse hit it so directly.
IVE(iShares S&P 500 Value ETF) holds the value half, selected on measures such as book-to-price, earnings-to-price, and sales-to-price. In 2000 that meant financials, energy, industrials, and consumer staples.
Both were chosen for this comparison specifically because they are old enough to have traded through the entire period. Most of the growth and value ETFs investors hold today launched well after 2000 and simply cannot be tested against this decade.
#A limitation worth stating
Both funds began trading on May 26, 2000, not on January 1. The simulation therefore starts at inception rather than at the requested start date, which is why the contributed total is $67,500 rather than the full $70,000, and it is flagged in the results table above.
This matters for interpretation. The Nasdaq peaked in March 2000 and had already fallen substantially by late May. These funds missed the first leg down, which flatters the growth result relative to a true January 2000 start. The real gap between the styles over the full decade was somewhat wider in value’s favor than the table shows.
#Why this decade gets cited so often
Growth has outperformed value for most of the period since 2010, by a wide margin. The 2000s are the standard counterexample, offered as evidence that the relationship is cyclical rather than permanent.
The evidence supports the cyclical claim, but this page suggests some caution about how strongly it is usually stated. For a contribution plan, the value advantage in its best decade amounted to two tenths of a percentage point per year, alongside a deeper worst-case decline. That is a meaningfully weaker case than the reputation carries, and it is the kind of gap that disappears entirely under different start and end dates.
#What to test
- Run the same two tickers with contribution frequency set to lump sum. Value's advantage widens considerably, which is the version of this decade most commentary describes.
- Run 2010 to today for the same pair. The ranking reverses decisively.
- Run the full 2000 to today window, which contains both regimes, and see how little separates them across 25 years.
- Add IVV or SPY as a neutral third ticker so both styles are measured against the plain index.
Change the contribution amount, schedule, or date range and re-run this comparison against the same historical data.
Open this in the calculator →