Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWF vs XBI: how they differ
IWF and XBI hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and XBI returned more over the year.
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Biotech ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWF and XBI hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IWF | XBI |
|---|---|---|
| AMGEN INC. | 0.41% | 1.00% |
| ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. | 0.12% | 0.96% |
| NATERA, INC. | 0.11% | 1.17% |
| REVOLUTION MEDICINES, INC. | 0.11% | 1.21% |
| ABBVIE INC. | 0.10% | 1.04% |
| INSMED INCORPORATED | 0.07% | 1.08% |
| NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES, INC. | 0.04% | 0.97% |
| IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. | 0.04% | 1.00% |
| BRIDGEBIO PHARMA, INC. | 0.04% | 1.03% |
| MADRIGAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. | 0.03% | 1.06% |
| HALOZYME THERAPEUTICS, INC. | 0.03% | 1.03% |
| ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. | 0.02% | 1.07% |
| Only in IWF | Only in XBI |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORPORATION 13.85% | Apogee Therapeutics Inc 1.49% |
| APPLE INC. 6.72% | Moderna Inc 1.41% |
| ALPHABET INC. 6.18% | Twist Bioscience Corp 1.41% |
| BROADCOM INC. 5.21% | Oruka Therapeutics Inc 1.38% |
| ALPHABET INC. 4.98% | Kymera Therapeutics Inc 1.36% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.11% | Praxis Precision Medicines Inc 1.29% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86% | Erasca Inc 1.27% |
| TESLA, INC. 3.65% | Rhythm Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20% |
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 iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF | XBI State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Biotech ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | State Street |
| What it is | Russell 1000 growth | SPDR S&P Biotech |
| Total return, 1 year | +7.0% | +64.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −10.5 pts | +46.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 93.6% | 8.5% |
| Holdings | 368 | 150 |
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.
XBI in plain words
XBI is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Biotech. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +64.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 8% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 150 positions, with the top ten at 13.3%. It sat 9.6% below its high of Feb 8, 2021 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWF or XBI?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and XBI returned +64.0%, so XBI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IWF or XBI?
- IWF charges 0.18% a year and XBI charges 0.35%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IWF and XBI overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 8% of XBI by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IWF against XBI, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-XBI Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources