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 VBR: how they differ

IWD and VBR hold 10% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWD and VBR hold 10% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWD and VBR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWDVBR
FLEX LTD.0.17%0.32%
QNITY ELECTRONICS, INC.0.10%0.37%
EQT CORPORATION0.09%0.18%
CENTENE CORPORATION0.08%0.34%
ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION0.08%0.62%
STEEL DYNAMICS, INC.0.08%0.34%
HUBBELL INCORPORATED0.08%0.15%
MKS, INCORPORATED.0.08%0.32%
ILLUMINA, INC.0.07%0.27%
MODERNA, INC.0.07%0.54%
SMURFIT WESTROCK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY0.07%0.52%
F5, INC.0.07%0.50%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWDOnly in VBR
AMAZON.COM, INC. 5.95%Jabil Inc 0.87%
APPLE INC. 5.38%NRG Energy Inc 0.66%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3.89%Tapestry Inc 0.64%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.62%EMCOR Group Inc 0.40%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.46%Moog Inc 0.26%
INTEL CORPORATION 1.72%American Airlines Group Inc 0.26%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.72%Viasat Inc 0.25%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%UMB Financial Corp 0.21%

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 VBR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
VBR
Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isRussell 1000 valueSmall-Cap Value
Total return, 1 year+27.4%+16.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+9.9 pts−1.2 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.05%
Already in the S&P 50090.2%30.5%
Holdings870840

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%.

VBR in plain words

VBR is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 30% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 840 positions, with the top ten at 5.9%. It sat 3.8% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWD or VBR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWD returned +27.4% and VBR returned +16.3%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWD or VBR?
IWD charges 0.18% a year and VBR charges 0.05%, so VBR is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWD and VBR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 90% of IWD and 30% of VBR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 10% 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 VBR, 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 VBR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWD-VBR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources