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

IWF vs ONEQ: how they differ

IWF and ONEQ hold 62% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and ONEQ hold 62% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWF and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFONEQ
NVIDIA CORPORATION13.85%11.24%
APPLE INC.6.72%10.04%
ALPHABET INC.6.18%4.85%
BROADCOM INC.5.21%4.64%
ALPHABET INC.4.98%4.48%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION4.11%7.32%
TESLA, INC.3.65%3.58%
META PLATFORMS, INC.3.01%3.03%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.3.86%2.38%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.2.80%1.84%
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION1.61%0.87%
NETFLIX, INC.0.89%0.79%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in ONEQ
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 2.84%INTEL CORP 1.25%
VISA INC. 1.68%CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.04%
CATERPILLAR INC. 1.44%QUALCOMM INC 0.58%
MASTERCARD INCORPORATED 1.23%LINDE PLC 0.50%
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1.15%T-MOBILE US INC 0.45%
GE VERNOVA INC. 0.94%SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 0.42%
THE HOME DEPOT, INC. 0.77%GILEAD SCIENCES INC 0.36%
ORACLE CORPORATION 0.74%HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC 0.33%

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.

IWF and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isRussell 1000 growthNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+7.0%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.21%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%87.4%
Holdings3681022

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% 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, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 368 positions, with the top ten at 54.4%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

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, IWF or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or ONEQ?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 62% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources