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 IWM: how they differ

IJS and IWM hold 31% 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 2000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IJS and IWM hold 31% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IJS and IWM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIJSIWM
MAXLINEAR INC0.67%0.34%
PLEXUS CORP0.49%0.25%
GLAUKOS CORP0.28%0.25%
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES INC0.44%0.23%
ARCOSA INC0.28%0.22%
MACERICH COMPANY (THE)0.37%0.22%
KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES INC0.77%0.21%
TERRENO REALTY CORP0.23%0.21%
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC0.73%0.21%
ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES REALTY TRUST INC0.23%0.20%
ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS INC0.70%0.20%
SM ENERGY COMPANY0.65%0.20%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IJSOnly in IWM
MOLINA HEALTHCARE INC 1.30%Moog, Inc. 0.38%
MATCH GROUP INC 0.97%Hut 8 Corp. 0.37%
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY 0.84%Viasat, Inc. 0.35%
CARMAX INC 0.82%BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. 0.35%
POOL CORP 0.75%Cytokinetics, Inc. 0.35%
LKQ CORP 0.73%Argan, Inc. 0.34%
ENPHASE ENERGY INC 0.71%UMB Financial Corp. 0.33%
CONAGRA BRANDS INC 0.69%JFrog Ltd. 0.31%

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 IWM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IJS
iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isS&P Small-Cap 600 ValueRussell 2000
Total return, 1 year+22.1%+21.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.7 pts+3.7 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.19%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings4612014

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.

IWM in plain words

IWM is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% 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 2014 positions, with the top ten at 3.4%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IJS or IWM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IJS returned +22.1% and IWM returned +21.2%, so IJS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IJS or IWM?
IJS charges 0.18% a year and IWM charges 0.19%, so IJS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IJS and IWM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IJS and 0% of IWM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 31% 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 IWM, 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 IWM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IJS-IWM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources