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

ITOT vs IWM: how they differ

ITOT and IWM hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and IWM returned more over the year.

iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ITOT and IWM hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ITOT and IWM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingITOTIWM
Moog, Inc.0.02%0.38%
Viasat, Inc.0.02%0.35%
Cytokinetics, Inc.0.02%0.35%
Hut 8 Corp.0.02%0.37%
Argan, Inc.0.01%0.34%
BrightSpring Health Services, Inc.0.01%0.35%
MaxLinear, Inc.0.01%0.34%
Krystal Biotech, Inc.0.01%0.30%
UMB Financial Corp.0.01%0.33%
CareTrust REIT, Inc.0.01%0.28%
Riot Platforms, Inc.0.01%0.30%
Alkermes plc0.01%0.27%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ITOTOnly in IWM
NVIDIA Corp. 6.64%JFrog Ltd. 0.31%
Apple, Inc. 5.82%SSR Mining, Inc. 0.20%
Microsoft Corp. 3.80%Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 0.18%
Amazon.com, Inc. 3.20%Golar LNG Ltd. 0.15%
Alphabet, Inc. 2.87%Brookfield Infrastructure Corp. 0.15%
Broadcom, Inc. 2.45%Constellium SE 0.13%
Alphabet, Inc. 2.29%Marex Group plc 0.12%
Micron Technology, Inc. 1.78%Energy Fuels, Inc. 0.12%

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 and IWM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ITOT
iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isCore S&P Total U.S. Stock MarketRussell 2000
Total return, 1 year+17.2%+21.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.3 pts+3.7 pts
Expense ratio0.03%0.19%
Already in the S&P 50088.3%0.0%
Holdings24972014

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%.

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, ITOT or IWM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ITOT returned +17.2% and IWM returned +21.2%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ITOT or IWM?
ITOT charges 0.03% a year and IWM charges 0.19%, so ITOT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ITOT and IWM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 88% of ITOT and 0% of IWM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources