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 SPYD: how they differ

IWF and SPYD hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and SPYD returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) High Dividend ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions IWF and SPYD both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFSPYD
SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC.0.21%1.45%
AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION0.15%1.10%
Pepsico, Inc.0.07%1.11%
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION0.04%1.32%
PUBLIC STORAGE.0.02%1.33%
PHILLIPS 660.01%1.44%
Hasbro, Inc.0.01%1.13%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in SPYD
NVIDIA CORPORATION 13.85%Iron Mountain Inc 1.62%
APPLE INC. 6.72%Franklin Resources Inc 1.57%
ALPHABET INC. 6.18%CVS Health Corp 1.53%
BROADCOM INC. 5.21%Host Hotels & Resorts Inc 1.53%
ALPHABET INC. 4.98%Edison International 1.48%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.11%Target Corp 1.48%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86%APA Corp 1.48%
TESLA, INC. 3.65%Viatris Inc 1.46%

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.

IWF and SPYD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
SPYD
State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) High Dividend ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isRussell 1000 growthSPDR Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend
Total return, 1 year+7.0%+12.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts−4.6 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%100.0%
Holdings36878

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.

SPYD in plain words

SPYD is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 High Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 78 positions, with the top ten at 15.1%. It sat 4.3% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or SPYD?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and SPYD returned +12.9%, so SPYD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or SPYD?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and SPYD charges 0.07%, so SPYD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and SPYD overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 100% of SPYD 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources