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

FNDX vs IWB: how they differ

FNDX and IWB hold 62% of their weight in the same names, and FNDX returned more over the year.

Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FNDX and IWB hold 62% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FNDX and IWB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFNDXIWB
Apple Inc4.64%6.03%
Alphabet Inc2.38%3.00%
Microsoft Corp2.33%4.00%
Alphabet Inc1.90%2.42%
Amazon.com Inc1.86%3.33%
Micron Technology Inc1.60%1.88%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc1.41%1.34%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.38%1.26%
Meta Platforms Inc1.24%1.79%
Intel Corp2.57%0.88%
Johnson & Johnson0.97%0.88%
Exxon Mobil Corp2.29%0.82%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FNDXOnly in IWB
Linde PLC 0.29%PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC. 0.37%
Honeywell International Inc 0.29%LINDE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.34%
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.29%CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS, INC. 0.28%
Accenture PLC 0.26%EATON CORPORATION PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.24%
Lumen Technologies Inc 0.22%APPLOVIN CORPORATION 0.18%
Bunge Global SA 0.20%Chubb Limited 0.17%
LyondellBasell Industries NV 0.19%TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC LIMITED COMPAN 0.16%
Chubb Ltd 0.18%MEDTRONIC PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.14%

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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

FNDX and IWB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FNDX
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabiShares
What it isFundamental U.S. Large CompanyRussell 1000
Total return, 1 year+26.1%+16.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+8.6 pts−0.8 pts
Expense ratio0.25%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50091.2%91.9%
Holdings7331024

FNDX in plain words

FNDX is an index equity fund tracking the Fundamental U.S. Large Company. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +26.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 733 positions, with the top ten at 22.5%.

IWB in plain words

IWB is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.7% 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 Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1024 positions, with the top ten at 33.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FNDX or IWB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FNDX returned +26.1% and IWB returned +16.7%, so FNDX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FNDX or IWB?
FNDX charges 0.25% a year and IWB charges 0.15%, so IWB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FNDX and IWB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of FNDX and 92% of IWB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 62% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources