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 XOVR: how they differ

IWF and XOVR hold 23% of their weight in the same names, and IWF returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and XOVR hold 23% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWF and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFXOVR
NVIDIA CORPORATION13.85%9.48%
ALPHABET INC.6.18%6.53%
META PLATFORMS, INC.3.01%4.47%
TESLA, INC.3.65%1.63%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.0.77%0.56%
ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.0.53%2.31%
APPLOVIN CORPORATION0.37%3.95%
Astera Labs, Inc0.22%7.75%
DOORDASH, INC.0.20%2.04%
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.0.19%1.77%
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.0.19%3.56%
ROCKET LAB CORPORATION0.16%2.50%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in XOVR
APPLE INC. 6.72%Veeva Systems Inc 3.17%
BROADCOM INC. 5.21%Virtu Financial Inc 1.86%
ALPHABET INC. 4.98%Resmed Inc 1.36%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 4.11%Globus Medical Inc 1.35%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 3.86%N/A 0.05%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 2.84%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 2.80%
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 1.70%

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 XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesERShares
What it isRussell 1000 growthPrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+7.0%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%43.4%
Holdings36832

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.

XOVR in plain words

XOVR is an index equity fund tracking the Private-Public Crossover. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned 0.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 32 positions, with the top ten at 63.1%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Oct 27, 2025 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so IWF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or XOVR?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 23% 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 XOVR, 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 XOVR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWF-XOVR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources