Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DFUS vs IJS: how they differ
DFUS and IJS hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IJS returned more over the year.
Dimensional U.S. Equity Market ETF and iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, DFUS and IJS hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | DFUS | IJS |
|---|---|---|
| ELEMENT SOLUTIONS INC | 0.01% | 0.60% |
| EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY | 0.01% | 0.84% |
| JACKSON FINANCIAL INC. | 0.01% | 0.61% |
| LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. | 0.01% | 0.44% |
| MATCH GROUP, INC. | 0.01% | 0.97% |
| QORVO, INC. | 0.01% | 0.30% |
| CELANESE CORPORATION | 0.01% | 0.55% |
| LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION | 0.01% | 0.66% |
| LKQ CORPORATION | 0.01% | 0.73% |
| PLEXUS CORP. | 0.01% | 0.49% |
| ARCOSA, INC. | 0.01% | 0.28% |
| ATLANTIC UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION | 0.01% | 0.66% |
| Only in DFUS | Only in IJS |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORPORATION 6.97% | RITHM CAPITAL CORP 0.57% |
| APPLE INC. 5.86% | ICHOR HOLDINGS LTD 0.43% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.52% | GEO GROUP INC (THE) 0.42% |
| AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.84% | APPLE HOSPITALITY REIT INC 0.40% |
| ALPHABET INC. 3.31% | SL GREEN REALTY CORP 0.40% |
| BROADCOM INC. 2.90% | SIGNET JEWELERS LTD 0.38% |
| ALPHABET INC. 2.74% | MACERICH COMPANY (THE) 0.37% |
| META PLATFORMS, INC. 2.01% | HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES INC 0.36% |
Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.
| DFUS Dimensional U.S. Equity Market ETF | IJS iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Dimensional | iShares |
| What it is | U.S. Equity Market | S&P Small-Cap 600 Value |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.5% | +22.1% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | 0.0 pts | +4.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.18% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 90.2% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 2231 | 461 |
DFUS in plain words
DFUS is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2231 positions, with the top ten at 35.2%.
IJS in plain words
IJS is an index equity fund tracking the S&P Small-Cap 600 Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 461 positions, with the top ten at 8.3%. It sat 4.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DFUS or IJS?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DFUS returned +17.5% and IJS returned +22.1%, so IJS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, DFUS or IJS?
- DFUS charges 0.09% a year and IJS charges 0.18%, so DFUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do DFUS and IJS overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 90% of DFUS and 0% of IJS by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, DFUS against IJS, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DFUS-IJS Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources