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 ONEQ: how they differ

IJS and ONEQ hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IJS returned more over the year.

iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IJS and ONEQ hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IJS and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIJSONEQ
MATCH GROUP INC0.97%0.02%
PLEXUS CORP0.49%0.02%
QORVO INC0.30%0.02%
LKQ CORP0.73%0.02%
IRIDIUM COMMUNICATIONS INC0.25%0.02%
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP0.22%0.02%
ENACT HOLDINGS INC0.06%0.02%
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INC0.67%0.01%
CAMPBELL'S COMPANY (THE)0.48%0.01%
CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY0.11%0.01%
POOL CORP0.75%0.01%
VICTORY CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC0.15%0.01%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IJSOnly in ONEQ
MOLINA HEALTHCARE INC 1.30%NVIDIA CORP 11.24%
EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY 0.84%APPLE INC 10.04%
CARMAX INC 0.82%MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY INC 0.73%AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%
VICTORIA'S SECRET & COMPANY 0.72%ALPHABET INC 4.85%
CONAGRA BRANDS INC 0.69%BROADCOM INC 4.64%
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC 0.68%ALPHABET INC 4.48%
ATLANTIC UNION BANKSHARES CORP 0.66%TESLA INC 3.58%

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.

IJS and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IJS
iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isS&P Small-Cap 600 ValueNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+22.1%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.7 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.21%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%87.4%
Holdings4611022

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.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IJS or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IJS returned +22.1% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so IJS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IJS or ONEQ?
IJS charges 0.18% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so IJS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IJS and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IJS and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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 ONEQ, 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 ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IJS-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources