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

IJH vs XHB: how they differ

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

iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Homebuilders ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions IJH and XHB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIJHXHB
SOMNIGROUP INTERNATIONAL INC0.46%3.40%
TOLL BROTHERS INC0.43%3.52%
CARLISLE COMPANIES INC0.40%3.28%
OWENS CORNING0.35%4.10%
ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS INC0.31%3.60%
TOPBUILD CORP0.27%2.67%
AAON INC0.24%3.11%
TAYLOR MORRISON HOME CORP0.18%2.97%
KB HOME0.11%3.56%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IJHOnly in XHB
TWILIO INC 0.86%Builders FirstSource Inc 3.56%
CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP 0.85%Meritage Homes Corp 3.53%
MKS INC 0.83%Installed Building Products Inc 3.49%
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP 0.77%PulteGroup Inc 3.44%
ENTEGRIS INC 0.76%Masco Corp 3.41%
NVENT ELECTRIC PLC 0.76%Lennox International Inc 3.37%
ATI INC 0.74%Williams-Sonoma Inc 3.34%
ILLUMINA INC 0.73%Champion Homes Inc 3.34%

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.

IJH and XHB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IJH
iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF
XHB
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Homebuilders ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isS&P MidCap 400SPDR S&P Homebuilders
Total return, 1 year+13.4%−16.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.1 pts−34.1 pts
Expense ratio0.05%0.35%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%45.7%
Holdings40035

IJH in plain words

IJH is an index equity fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% 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 400 positions, with the top ten at 7.7%. It sat 5.4% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

XHB in plain words

XHB is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Homebuilders. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −16.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 46% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 35 positions, with the top ten at 35.6%. It sat 20.6% below its high of Oct 18, 2024 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IJH or XHB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IJH returned +13.4% and XHB returned −16.6%, so IJH returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IJH or XHB?
IJH charges 0.05% a year and XHB charges 0.35%, so IJH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IJH and XHB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IJH and 46% of XHB 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources