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 SCHG: how they differ

IWB and SCHG hold 50% of their weight in the same names, and IWB returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWB and SCHG hold 50% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWB and SCHG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWBSCHG
NVIDIA CORPORATION6.73%11.02%
APPLE INC.6.03%9.84%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION4.00%7.18%
AMAZON.COM, INC.3.33%5.68%
ALPHABET INC.3.00%4.76%
BROADCOM INC.2.54%4.55%
ALPHABET INC.2.42%3.78%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.79%3.46%
TESLA, INC.1.77%3.92%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY1.38%3.06%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.1.36%2.94%
VISA INC.0.82%1.92%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWBOnly in SCHG
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.88%Linde PLC 0.81%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1.34%Trane Technologies PLC 0.35%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 1.26%TE Connectivity PLC 0.22%
INTEL CORPORATION 0.88%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.13%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 0.88%Carnival Corp Ltd 0.13%
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 0.83%FTAI Aviation Ltd 0.09%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.82%Flutter Entertainment PLC 0.06%
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 0.78%Roivant Sciences Ltd 0.05%

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 SCHG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isRussell 1000U.S. Large-Cap Growth
Total return, 1 year+16.7%+12.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.8 pts−4.8 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.04%
Already in the S&P 50091.9%95.4%
Holdings1024193

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%.

SCHG in plain words

SCHG is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% 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 193 positions, with the top ten at 57.2%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWB or SCHG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.7% and SCHG returned +12.7%, so IWB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWB or SCHG?
IWB charges 0.15% a year and SCHG charges 0.04%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and SCHG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 95% of SCHG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 50% 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 SCHG, 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 SCHG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWB-SCHG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources