Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
ITOT vs IWF: how they differ
ITOT and IWF hold 54% of their weight in the same names, and ITOT returned more over the year.
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, ITOT and IWF hold 54% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | ITOT | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp. | 6.64% | 13.85% |
| Apple, Inc. | 5.82% | 6.72% |
| Microsoft Corp. | 3.80% | 4.11% |
| Alphabet, Inc. | 2.87% | 6.18% |
| Broadcom, Inc. | 2.45% | 5.21% |
| Alphabet, Inc. | 2.29% | 4.98% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. | 1.78% | 3.86% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. | 1.70% | 3.01% |
| Tesla, Inc. | 1.62% | 3.65% |
| Eli Lilly & Co. | 1.30% | 2.84% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | 1.30% | 2.80% |
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 0.79% | 1.70% |
| Only in ITOT | Only in IWF |
|---|---|
| Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. 1.26% | TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC LIMITED COMPAN 0.32% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. 1.20% | SPOTIFY TECHNOLOGY S.A. 0.21% |
| Intel Corp. 0.90% | Nu Holdings Ltd. 0.14% |
| Johnson & Johnson 0.84% | ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. 0.13% |
| Exxon Mobil Corp. 0.78% | Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.13% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. 0.64% | ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI PLC 0.11% |
| UnitedHealth Group, Inc. 0.52% | FTAI Aviation Ltd. 0.08% |
| Procter & Gamble Co. (The) 0.47% | EATON CORPORATION PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.08% |
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.
| ITOT iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF | IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market | Russell 1000 growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.2% | +7.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −0.3 pts | −10.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.18% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 88.3% | 93.6% |
| Holdings | 2497 | 368 |
ITOT in plain words
ITOT is an index equity fund tracking the Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 88% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2497 positions, with the top ten at 32.2%.
IWF in plain words
IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% 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, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 368 positions, with the top ten at 54.4%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, ITOT or IWF?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ITOT returned +17.2% and IWF returned +7.0%, so ITOT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, ITOT or IWF?
- ITOT charges 0.03% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so ITOT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do ITOT and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 88% of ITOT and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 54% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, ITOT against IWF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ITOT-IWF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources