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

IJS vs IWB: how they differ

IJS and IWB hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and IJS returned more over the year.

iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IJS and IWB hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IJS and IWB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIJSIWB
MOLINA HEALTHCARE INC1.30%0.02%
ELEMENT SOLUTIONS INC0.60%0.02%
MATCH GROUP INC0.97%0.01%
RALLIANT CORP0.43%0.01%
CARMAX INC0.82%0.01%
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY0.84%0.01%
QORVO INC0.30%0.01%
LKQ CORP0.73%0.01%
POOL CORP0.75%0.01%
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INC0.67%0.01%
CONAGRA BRANDS INC0.69%0.01%
ENPHASE ENERGY INC0.71%0.01%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IJSOnly in IWB
KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES INC 0.77%NVIDIA CORPORATION 6.73%
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC 0.73%APPLE INC. 6.03%
VICTORIA'S SECRET & COMPANY 0.72%MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.00%
ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS INC 0.70%AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.33%
MAXLINEAR INC 0.67%ALPHABET INC. 3.00%
ATLANTIC UNION BANKSHARES CORP 0.66%BROADCOM INC. 2.54%
SM ENERGY COMPANY 0.65%ALPHABET INC. 2.42%
MATSON INC 0.64%MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.88%

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.

IJS and IWB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IJS
iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isS&P Small-Cap 600 ValueRussell 1000
Total return, 1 year+22.1%+16.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.7 pts−0.8 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.15%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%91.9%
Holdings4611024

IJS in plain words

IJS is an index equity fund tracking the S&P Small-Cap 600 Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% 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 461 positions, with the top ten at 8.3%. It sat 4.3% below its high of Aug 14, 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, IJS or IWB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IJS returned +22.1% and IWB returned +16.7%, so IJS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IJS or IWB?
IJS charges 0.18% a year and IWB charges 0.15%, so IWB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IJS and IWB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IJS and 92% of IWB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources