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 SPYD: how they differ

IWB and SPYD hold 5% of their weight in the same names, and IWB returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) High Dividend ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWB and SPYD hold 5% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWB and SPYD both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWBSPYD
CHEVRON CORPORATION0.44%1.20%
Pepsico, Inc.0.27%1.11%
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.0.26%1.30%
AT&T INC.0.20%1.06%
PFIZER INC.0.20%1.12%
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION0.19%1.53%
Altria Group, Inc.0.17%1.42%
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY0.17%1.27%
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION0.14%1.28%
U.S. BANCORP0.14%1.31%
COMCAST CORPORATION0.12%1.02%
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.0.12%1.19%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWBOnly in SPYD
NVIDIA CORPORATION 6.73%Smurfit Westrock PLC 1.33%
APPLE INC. 6.03%Amcor PLC 1.23%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.00%LyondellBasell Industries NV 1.22%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 3.33%
ALPHABET INC. 3.00%
BROADCOM INC. 2.54%
ALPHABET INC. 2.42%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.88%

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 SPYD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
SPYD
State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) High Dividend ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isRussell 1000SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend
Total return, 1 year+16.7%+12.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.8 pts−4.6 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50091.9%100.0%
Holdings102478

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%.

SPYD in plain words

SPYD is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.9% 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 Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 78 positions, with the top ten at 15.1%. It sat 4.3% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWB or SPYD?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.7% and SPYD returned +12.9%, so IWB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWB or SPYD?
IWB charges 0.15% a year and SPYD charges 0.07%, so SPYD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and SPYD overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 100% of SPYD by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 5% 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 SPYD, 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 SPYD, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWB-SPYD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources