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 XHB: how they differ

IWF and XHB hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IWF returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Homebuilders ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and XHB hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWF and XHB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFXHB
THE HOME DEPOT, INC.0.77%3.28%
MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY0.04%3.07%
AAON, INC.0.03%3.11%
NVR, Inc.0.02%3.21%
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC.0.02%3.37%
WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.0.01%3.34%
Somnigroup International Inc.0.01%3.40%
CARLISLE COMPANIES INCORPORATED0.00%3.28%
TOPBUILD CORP.0.00%2.67%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in XHB
NVIDIA CORPORATION 13.85%Owens Corning 4.10%
APPLE INC. 6.72%Advanced Drainage Systems Inc 3.60%
ALPHABET INC. 6.18%KB Home 3.56%
BROADCOM INC. 5.21%Builders FirstSource Inc 3.56%
ALPHABET INC. 4.98%Meritage Homes Corp 3.53%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.11%Toll Brothers Inc 3.52%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86%Installed Building Products Inc 3.49%
TESLA, INC. 3.65%PulteGroup Inc 3.44%

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 XHB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
XHB
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Homebuilders ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isRussell 1000 growthSPDR S&P Homebuilders
Total return, 1 year+7.0%−16.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts−34.1 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%45.7%
Holdings36835

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.

XHB in plain words

XHB is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Homebuilders. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −16.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 46% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 35 positions, with the top ten at 35.6%. It sat 20.6% below its high of Oct 18, 2024 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or XHB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and XHB returned −16.6%, so IWF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or XHB?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and XHB charges 0.35%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and XHB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 46% of XHB 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources