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

IWB vs RDVY: how they differ

IWB and RDVY hold 22% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWB and RDVY hold 22% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWB and RDVY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWBRDVY
ALPHABET INC.3.00%2.12%
NVIDIA CORPORATION6.73%1.91%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.1.88%1.83%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.79%1.50%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION4.00%1.45%
APPLE INC.6.03%1.44%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.1.26%1.91%
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.0.83%4.69%
VISA INC.0.82%1.82%
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION0.78%4.42%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION0.60%1.73%
MASTERCARD INCORPORATED0.60%1.19%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWBOnly in RDVY
AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.33%CHUBB LTD (SWITZERLAND) 1.97%
BROADCOM INC. 2.54%ACCENTURE PLC 1.00%
ALPHABET INC. 2.42%EVEREST GROUP LTD 0.54%
TESLA, INC. 1.77%WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL PLC 0.39%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 1.38%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 1.36%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1.34%
INTEL CORPORATION 0.88%

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.

IWB and RDVY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFirst Trust
What it isRussell 1000First Rising Dividend Achievers
Total return, 1 year+16.7%+22.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.8 pts+4.5 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.47%
Already in the S&P 50091.9%94.4%
Holdings102471

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%.

RDVY in plain words

RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% 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 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWB or RDVY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.7% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWB or RDVY?
IWB charges 0.15% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so IWB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 22% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources