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

FDVV vs IWF: how they differ

FDVV and IWF hold 28% of their weight in the same names, and FDVV returned more over the year.

Fidelity High Dividend ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FDVV and IWF hold 28% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FDVV and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFDVVIWF
NVIDIA CORP6.86%13.85%
APPLE INC5.70%6.72%
MICROSOFT CORP4.50%4.11%
BROADCOM INC3.50%5.21%
ALPHABET INC2.21%6.18%
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.1.32%0.80%
HOME DEPOT INC1.66%0.77%
META PLATFORMS INC0.74%3.01%
ELI LILLY and CO0.56%2.84%
CATERPILLAR INC0.46%1.44%
GE AEROSPACE0.34%1.15%
TJX COMPANIES INC1.65%0.23%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FDVVOnly in IWF
JPMORGAN CHASE and CO 2.58%ALPHABET INC. 4.98%
PROCTER and GAMBLE CO 1.81%MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86%
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (THE) 1.71%TESLA, INC. 3.65%
ALTRIA GROUP INC 1.70%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 2.80%
PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC 1.64%APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 1.70%
MCDONALDS CORP 1.55%VISA INC. 1.68%
WELLS FARGO and CO 1.52%LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 1.61%
NEXTERA ENERGY INC 1.39%MASTERCARD INCORPORATED 1.23%

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.

FDVV and IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isHigh DividendRussell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+17.2%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.3 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50086.7%93.6%
Holdings96368

FDVV in plain words

FDVV is an index equity fund tracking the High Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 96 positions, with the top ten at 32.5%.

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% 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, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 368 positions, with the top ten at 54.4%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FDVV or IWF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FDVV returned +17.2% and IWF returned +7.0%, so FDVV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FDVV or IWF?
FDVV charges 0.15% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so FDVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FDVV and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FDVV and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 28% 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.

FDVV against IWF, 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, FDVV against IWF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FDVV-IWF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources