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

FTEC vs IWB: how they differ

FTEC and IWB hold 35% of their weight in the same names, and FTEC returned more over the year.

Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FTEC and IWB hold 35% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FTEC and IWB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFTECIWB
NVIDIA Corp18.00%6.73%
Apple Inc14.38%6.03%
Microsoft Corp9.54%4.00%
Broadcom Inc5.01%2.54%
Micron Technology Inc2.64%1.88%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc2.60%1.36%
Intel Corp1.99%0.88%
Applied Materials Inc1.45%0.83%
Lam Research Corp1.49%0.78%
Cisco Systems Inc1.66%0.67%
KLA Corp1.09%0.57%
Sandisk Corp/DE0.80%0.48%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FTECOnly in IWB
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.76%AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.33%
Accenture PLC 0.53%ALPHABET INC. 3.00%
NXP Semiconductors NV 0.40%ALPHABET INC. 2.42%
TE Connectivity PLC 0.34%META PLATFORMS, INC. 1.79%
Flex Ltd 0.25%TESLA, INC. 1.77%
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.21%ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 1.38%
Fabrinet 0.21%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1.34%
Hut 8 Corp 0.13%JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 1.26%

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.

FTEC and IWB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FTEC
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isMSCI Information TechnologyRussell 1000
Total return, 1 year+35.7%+16.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+18.2 pts−0.8 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50086.2%91.9%
Holdings2821024

FTEC in plain words

FTEC is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Information Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +35.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 86% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 282 positions, with the top ten at 58.8%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

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, FTEC or IWB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FTEC returned +35.7% and IWB returned +16.7%, so FTEC returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FTEC or IWB?
FTEC charges 0.08% a year and IWB charges 0.15%, so FTEC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FTEC and IWB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 86% of FTEC and 92% of IWB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 35% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources