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 XLY: how they differ

IWB and XLY hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and IWB returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 ETF and State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWB and XLY hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWB and XLY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWBXLY
AMAZON.COM, INC.3.33%22.24%
TESLA, INC.1.77%19.66%
THE HOME DEPOT, INC.0.51%5.83%
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION0.28%4.16%
THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.0.24%3.93%
BOOKING HOLDINGS INC.0.20%3.44%
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.0.18%3.08%
STARBUCKS CORPORATION0.17%2.90%
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.0.12%2.02%
O'Reilly Automotive, Inc.0.11%1.90%
HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC.0.11%1.87%
DOORDASH, INC.0.10%1.74%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWBOnly in XLY
NVIDIA CORPORATION 6.73%Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 1.97%
APPLE INC. 6.03%Garmin Ltd 0.97%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.00%Carnival Corp Ltd 0.92%
ALPHABET INC. 3.00%Aptiv PLC 0.32%
BROADCOM INC. 2.54%Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd 0.24%
ALPHABET INC. 2.42%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.88%
META PLATFORMS, INC. 1.79%

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 XLY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
XLY
State Street(R) Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isRussell 1000Consumer discretionary
Total return, 1 year+16.7%−4.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.8 pts−21.6 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50091.9%100.0%
Holdings102447

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%.

XLY in plain words

XLY is an index equity fund tracking the Consumer discretionary. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −4.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% 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 47 positions, with the top ten at 69.2%. It sat 8.9% below its high of Jan 12, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWB or XLY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWB returned +16.7% and XLY returned −4.1%, so IWB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWB or XLY?
IWB charges 0.15% a year and XLY charges 0.08%, so XLY is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWB and XLY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IWB and 100% of XLY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 8% 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 XLY, 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 XLY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWB-XLY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources