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

IWD vs MOAT: how they differ

IWD and MOAT hold 9% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWD and MOAT hold 9% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWD and MOAT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWDMOAT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION3.89%2.20%
AMAZON.COM, INC.5.95%1.33%
META PLATFORMS, INC.0.63%1.17%
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INCORPORATED0.52%1.18%
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY0.48%1.19%
Pepsico, Inc.0.46%1.17%
THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION0.39%2.45%
DANAHER CORPORATION0.34%2.41%
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY0.33%2.43%
U.S. BANCORP0.26%1.39%
Mondelez International, Inc.0.21%2.34%
Northrop Grumman Corporation0.19%1.15%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWDOnly in MOAT
APPLE INC. 5.38%Airbnb Inc 2.56%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.62%Palo Alto Networks Inc 2.51%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.46%NVIDIA Corp 2.45%
INTEL CORPORATION 1.72%Datadog Inc 2.44%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.72%Broadcom Inc 2.43%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%Applied Materials Inc 2.34%
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 1.30%Fortinet Inc 2.21%
WALMART INC. 1.28%NXP Semiconductors NV 1.60%

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.

IWD and MOAT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanEck
What it isRussell 1000 valueMorningstar Wide Moat
Total return, 1 year+27.4%+11.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+9.9 pts−6.2 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.46%
Already in the S&P 50090.2%91.6%
Holdings87055

IWD in plain words

IWD is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 870 positions, with the top ten at 27.9%.

MOAT in plain words

MOAT is an index equity fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.46% 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 55 positions, with the top ten at 25.3%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWD or MOAT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWD returned +27.4% and MOAT returned +11.3%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWD or MOAT?
IWD charges 0.18% a year and MOAT charges 0.46%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWD and MOAT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 90% of IWD and 92% of MOAT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 9% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources