Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
FNDX vs IWD: how they differ
FNDX and IWD hold 62% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, FNDX and IWD hold 62% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | FNDX | IWD |
|---|---|---|
| Apple Inc | 4.64% | 5.38% |
| Microsoft Corp | 2.33% | 3.89% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 1.86% | 5.95% |
| Intel Corp | 2.57% | 1.72% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp | 2.29% | 1.60% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | 1.41% | 2.62% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.38% | 2.46% |
| UnitedHealth Group Inc | 1.37% | 1.05% |
| Walmart Inc | 1.01% | 1.28% |
| Johnson & Johnson | 0.97% | 1.72% |
| Cisco Systems Inc | 0.90% | 1.30% |
| Bank of America Corp | 0.87% | 0.99% |
| Only in FNDX | Only in IWD |
|---|---|
| Alphabet Inc 2.38% | LINDE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.67% |
| Alphabet Inc 1.90% | EATON CORPORATION PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.39% |
| Micron Technology Inc 1.60% | Chubb Limited 0.34% |
| Broadcom Inc 0.65% | MEDTRONIC PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.28% |
| Caterpillar Inc 0.60% | JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LI 0.23% |
| NVIDIA Corp 0.55% | ACCENTURE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.21% |
| Applied Materials Inc 0.47% | CRH PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.20% |
| Texas Instruments Inc 0.43% | HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATION 0.20% |
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 Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF | IWD iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Schwab | iShares |
| What it is | Fundamental U.S. Large Company | Russell 1000 value |
| Total return, 1 year | +26.1% | +27.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +8.6 pts | +9.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.18% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.2% | 90.2% |
| Holdings | 733 | 870 |
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%.
IWD in plain words
IWD is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.4% 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, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 870 positions, with the top ten at 27.9%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, FNDX or IWD?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FNDX returned +26.1% and IWD returned +27.4%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, FNDX or IWD?
- FNDX charges 0.25% a year and IWD charges 0.18%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do FNDX and IWD overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of FNDX and 90% of IWD 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, FNDX against IWD, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FNDX-IWD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources