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 REMX: how they differ

Over the year IWD returned more, +27.4% against +21.9%, and IWD charges 0.18% against 0.53%.

iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF and VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWD and REMX hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWD and REMX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWDREMX
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION0.04%7.24%
MP MATERIALS CORP0.02%6.20%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWDOnly in REMX
AMAZON.COM, INC. 5.95%Xiamen Tungsten Co Ltd 7.28%
APPLE INC. 5.38%China Northern Rare Earth Group High-Tec 7.06%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3.89%PLS Group Ltd 6.84%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.62%Lynas Rare Earths Ltd 6.80%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.46%Jinduicheng Molybdenum Co Ltd 5.94%
INTEL CORPORATION 1.72%Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile SA 4.92%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.72%Almonty Industries Inc 4.80%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%Shenghe Resources Holding Co Ltd 4.32%

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 REMX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
REMX
VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundThematic ETF
IssueriSharesVanEck
What it isRussell 1000 valueMiners and metals
Total return, 1 year+27.4%+21.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+9.9 pts+4.4 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.53%
Already in the S&P 50090.2%7.2%
Holdings87030

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%.

REMX in plain words

By weight, 7% of REMX's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 61% of the fund across 30 positions, as filed for Jun 30, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +21.9% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 4.4 pts. It sits 67.6% below its all-time high of Apr 11, 2011.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWD or REMX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWD returned +27.4% and REMX returned +21.9%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWD or REMX?
IWD charges 0.18% a year and REMX charges 0.53%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWD and REMX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 90% of IWD and 7% of REMX by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
Are IWD and REMX the same kind of fund?
No. IWD is an index ETF and REMX is a thematic ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources