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

IVV vs IWB: how they differ

IVV and IWB hold 90% of their weight in the same names, and IVV returned more over the year.

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IVV and IWB hold 90% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IVV and IWB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIVVIWB
NVIDIA Corp.7.52%6.73%
Apple, Inc.6.59%6.03%
Microsoft Corp.4.30%4.00%
Amazon.com, Inc.3.62%3.33%
Alphabet, Inc.3.25%3.00%
Broadcom, Inc.2.77%2.54%
Alphabet, Inc.2.59%2.42%
Micron Technology, Inc.2.02%1.88%
Meta Platforms, Inc.1.92%1.79%
Tesla, Inc.1.84%1.77%
Eli Lilly & Co.1.47%1.38%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.1.47%1.36%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IVVOnly in IWB
Linde plc 0.37%LINDE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.34%
Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.34%EATON CORPORATION PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.24%
Eaton Corp. plc 0.26%Chubb Limited 0.17%
Chubb Ltd. 0.19%TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC LIMITED COMPAN 0.16%
Trane Technologies plc 0.17%MEDTRONIC PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.14%
Medtronic plc 0.16%SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 0.13%
Johnson Controls International plc 0.14%JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LI 0.13%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 0.12%SNOWFLAKE 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.

IVV and IWB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IVV
iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isS&P 500Russell 1000
Total return, 1 year+17.6%+16.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+0.1 pts−0.8 pts
Expense ratio0.03%0.15%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%91.9%
Holdings5041024

IVV in plain words

IVV is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 504 positions, with the top ten at 36.4%.

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, IVV or IWB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IVV returned +17.6% and IWB returned +16.7%, so IVV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IVV or IWB?
IVV charges 0.03% a year and IWB charges 0.15%, so IVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IVV and IWB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of IVV and 92% of IWB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 90% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources