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 VT: how they differ

IWD and VT hold 38% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWD and VT hold 38% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWD and VT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWDVT
APPLE INC.5.38%3.53%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION3.89%2.73%
AMAZON.COM, INC.5.95%2.29%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.2.46%0.72%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.2.62%0.69%
META PLATFORMS, INC.0.63%1.21%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION1.60%0.59%
WALMART INC.1.28%0.52%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON1.72%0.50%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION0.66%0.41%
INTEL CORPORATION1.72%0.38%
ABBVIE INC.1.15%0.34%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWDOnly in VT
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATION 0.20%NVIDIA Corp 4.22%
HONEYWELL AEROSPACE INC. 0.20%Alphabet Inc 2.04%
Carnival Corporation Ltd. 0.10%Broadcom Inc 1.74%
AMCOR PLC 0.06%Alphabet Inc 1.61%
DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. 0.05%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 1.52%
MEDLINE INC. 0.05%Tesla Inc 0.97%
FEDEX FREIGHT HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 0.05%Eli Lilly & Co 0.68%
IREN LIMITED 0.04%Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 0.64%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

IWD and VT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
VT
Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isRussell 1000 valueTotal World Stock
Total return, 1 year+27.4%+18.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+9.9 pts+1.4 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.06%
Already in the S&P 50090.2%55.2%
Holdings87010042

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%.

VT in plain words

VT is an index equity fund tracking the Total World Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 55% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 10042 positions, with the top ten at 21.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWD or VT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWD returned +27.4% and VT returned +18.9%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWD or VT?
IWD charges 0.18% a year and VT charges 0.06%, so VT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWD and VT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 90% of IWD and 55% of VT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 38% 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 VT, 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 VT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWD-VT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources