Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

DFUS vs IWM: how they differ

DFUS and IWM hold 3% of their weight in the same names, and IWM returned more over the year.

Dimensional U.S. Equity Market ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DFUS and IWM hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DFUS and IWM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDFUSIWM
VISTANCE NETWORKS, INC.0.02%0.09%
UMB FINANCIAL CORPORATION0.01%0.33%
ARGAN, INC.0.01%0.34%
BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES, INC.0.01%0.35%
ESCO TECHNOLOGIES INC.0.01%0.29%
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS, INC.0.01%0.28%
MOOG INC.0.01%0.38%
OLD NATIONAL BANCORP0.01%0.28%
COMMERCIAL METALS COMPANY0.01%0.22%
ENERSYS0.01%0.27%
FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION0.01%0.24%
FLUOR CORPORATION.0.01%0.23%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DFUSOnly in IWM
NVIDIA CORPORATION 6.97%Cytokinetics, Inc. 0.35%
APPLE INC. 5.86%JFrog Ltd. 0.31%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.52%CareTrust REIT, Inc. 0.28%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.84%D-Wave Quantum, Inc. 0.28%
ALPHABET INC. 3.31%Alkermes plc 0.27%
BROADCOM INC. 2.90%Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc. 0.25%
ALPHABET INC. 2.74%Core Scientific, Inc. 0.25%
META PLATFORMS, INC. 2.01%JBT Marel Corp. 0.24%

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 and IWM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DFUS
Dimensional U.S. Equity Market ETF
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerDimensionaliShares
What it isU.S. Equity MarketRussell 2000
Total return, 1 year+17.5%+21.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 5000.0 pts+3.7 pts
Expense ratio0.09%0.19%
Already in the S&P 50090.2%0.0%
Holdings22312014

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%.

IWM in plain words

IWM is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% 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 2014 positions, with the top ten at 3.4%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DFUS or IWM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DFUS returned +17.5% and IWM returned +21.2%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DFUS or IWM?
DFUS charges 0.09% a year and IWM charges 0.19%, so DFUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DFUS and IWM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 90% of DFUS and 0% of IWM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 3% 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.

DFUS against IWM, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, DFUS against IWM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DFUS-IWM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources