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 SCHH: how they differ

IWB and SCHH hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and IWB returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 ETF and Schwab U.S. REIT ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWB and SCHH hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWB and SCHH both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWBSCHH
WELLTOWER INC.0.23%9.64%
PROLOGIS, INC.0.18%8.97%
EQUINIX, INC.0.15%4.89%
AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION0.11%4.35%
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC.0.10%4.48%
DIGITAL REALTY TRUST, INC.0.09%4.36%
REALTY INCOME CORPORATION0.08%4.00%
PUBLIC STORAGE.0.07%3.41%
VENTAS, INC.0.06%2.85%
IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED0.05%2.69%
CROWN CASTLE INC.0.05%2.83%
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE INC.0.04%2.18%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWBOnly in SCHH
NVIDIA CORPORATION 6.73%CareTrust REIT Inc 0.65%
APPLE INC. 6.03%Ryman Hospitality Properties Inc 0.52%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.00%Terreno Realty Corp 0.49%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.33%Essential Properties Realty Trust Inc 0.46%
ALPHABET INC. 3.00%Macerich Co/The 0.44%
BROADCOM INC. 2.54%Kite Realty Group Trust 0.42%
ALPHABET INC. 2.42%Phillips Edison & Co Inc 0.36%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.88%Sabra Health Care REIT Inc 0.36%

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 SCHH on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
SCHH
Schwab U.S. REIT ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isRussell 1000US REIT
Total return, 1 year+16.7%+9.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.8 pts−7.7 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50091.9%74.0%
Holdings1024117

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%.

SCHH in plain words

SCHH is an index equity fund tracking the US REIT. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +9.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 74% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 117 positions, with the top ten at 49.8%. It sat 6.7% below its high of Jul 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWB or SCHH?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.7% and SCHH returned +9.8%, so IWB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWB or SCHH?
IWB charges 0.15% a year and SCHH charges 0.07%, so SCHH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and SCHH overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 74% of SCHH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 SCHH, 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 SCHH, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWB-SCHH Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources