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 SCHD: how they differ

IWB and SCHD hold 7% of their weight in the same names, and SCHD returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 ETF and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWB and SCHD hold 7% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWB and SCHD both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWBSCHD
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED0.54%5.10%
THE HOME DEPOT, INC.0.51%3.37%
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY0.49%3.55%
MERCK & CO., INC.0.46%3.87%
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY0.46%3.96%
CHEVRON CORPORATION0.44%3.84%
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED0.39%5.92%
AMGEN INC.0.28%3.48%
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED0.28%6.75%
Pepsico, Inc.0.27%3.45%
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.0.26%3.66%
ABBOTT LABORATORIES0.23%2.97%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWBOnly in SCHD
NVIDIA CORPORATION 6.73%Accenture PLC 2.90%
APPLE INC. 6.03%Autoliv Inc 0.22%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.00%Erie Indemnity Co 0.14%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.33%Moelis & Co 0.13%
ALPHABET INC. 3.00%Murphy Oil Corp 0.12%
BROADCOM INC. 2.54%Federated Hermes Inc 0.10%
ALPHABET INC. 2.42%Korn Ferry 0.09%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.88%Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc 0.07%

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.

IWB and SCHD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
SCHD
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isRussell 1000US dividend
Total return, 1 year+16.7%+27.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.8 pts+10.1 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.06%
Already in the S&P 50091.9%95.1%
Holdings102499

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%.

SCHD in plain words

SCHD is an index equity fund tracking the US dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 99 positions, with the top ten at 43.7%. It sat 3.1% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWB or SCHD?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.7% and SCHD returned +27.6%, so SCHD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWB or SCHD?
IWB charges 0.15% a year and SCHD charges 0.06%, so SCHD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and SCHD overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 95% of SCHD by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 7% 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 SCHD, 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 SCHD, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWB-SCHD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources