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 ONEQ: how they differ

IWD and ONEQ hold 32% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWD and ONEQ hold 32% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWD and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWDONEQ
AMAZON.COM, INC.5.95%6.37%
APPLE INC.5.38%10.04%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION3.89%7.32%
WALMART INC.1.28%2.02%
INTEL CORPORATION1.72%1.25%
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.1.30%1.04%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION0.66%0.93%
META PLATFORMS, INC.0.63%3.03%
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED0.55%0.58%
ANALOG DEVICES, INC.0.51%0.44%
Pepsico, Inc.0.46%0.43%
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.0.44%0.36%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWDOnly in ONEQ
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.62%NVIDIA CORP 11.24%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.46%ALPHABET INC 4.85%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.72%BROADCOM INC 4.64%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%ALPHABET INC 4.48%
ABBVIE INC. 1.15%TESLA INC 3.58%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED 1.05%MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 2.38%
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 0.99%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 1.84%
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY 0.96%LAM RESEARCH CORP 0.87%

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.

IWD and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isRussell 1000 valueNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+27.4%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+9.9 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.21%
Already in the S&P 50090.2%87.4%
Holdings8701022

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%.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWD or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWD returned +27.4% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWD or ONEQ?
IWD charges 0.18% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWD and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 90% of IWD and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 32% 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 ONEQ, 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 ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWD-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources