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 SCHX: how they differ

IWB and SCHX hold 90% of their weight in the same names.

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

What they hold in common

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

Positions IWB and SCHX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWBSCHX
NVIDIA CORPORATION6.73%7.51%
APPLE INC.6.03%6.71%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION4.00%4.89%
AMAZON.COM, INC.3.33%3.87%
ALPHABET INC.3.00%3.24%
BROADCOM INC.2.54%3.10%
ALPHABET INC.2.42%2.58%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.79%2.02%
TESLA, INC.1.77%1.79%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.1.88%1.60%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY1.38%1.28%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.1.34%1.27%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWBOnly in SCHX
SANDISK CORPORATION 0.48%Linde PLC 0.34%
LINDE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.34%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.28%
EATON CORPORATION PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.24%Eaton Corp PLC 0.23%
Chubb Limited 0.17%Honeywell International Inc 0.22%
TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC LIMITED COMPAN 0.16%Accenture PLC 0.17%
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY 0.14%Chubb Ltd 0.17%
SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 0.13%Trane Technologies PLC 0.15%
JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LI 0.13%Medtronic PLC 0.14%

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 SCHX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
SCHX
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isRussell 1000U.S. Large-Cap
Total return, 1 year+16.7%+16.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.8 pts−0.7 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50091.9%94.9%
Holdings1024748

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%.

SCHX in plain words

SCHX is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% 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 748 positions, with the top ten at 37.3%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWB or SCHX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.7% and SCHX returned +16.8%, so SCHX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWB or SCHX?
IWB charges 0.15% a year and SCHX charges 0.03%, so SCHX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and SCHX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 95% of SCHX 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources