Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWM vs KRE: how they differ
IWM and KRE hold 9% of their weight in the same names, and IWM returned more over the year.
iShares Russell 2000 ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Regional Banking ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWM and KRE hold 9% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IWM | KRE |
|---|---|---|
| UMB Financial Corp. | 0.33% | 1.37% |
| Old National Bancorp | 0.28% | 1.35% |
| Valley National Bancorp | 0.22% | 1.31% |
| Glacier Bancorp, Inc. | 0.21% | 1.36% |
| Hancock Whitney Corp. | 0.19% | 1.34% |
| United Bankshares, Inc. | 0.19% | 1.29% |
| Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. | 0.19% | 1.37% |
| Ameris Bancorp | 0.18% | 1.32% |
| Home BancShares, Inc. | 0.17% | 1.31% |
| Axos Financial, Inc. | 0.16% | 1.18% |
| Eastern Bankshares, Inc. | 0.14% | 1.29% |
| First Financial Bankshares, Inc. | 0.14% | 0.83% |
| Only in IWM | Only in KRE |
|---|---|
| Moog, Inc. 0.38% | Pinnacle Financial Partners Inc 1.37% |
| Hut 8 Corp. 0.37% | Citizens Financial Group Inc 1.37% |
| Viasat, Inc. 0.35% | Cullen/Frost Bankers Inc 1.35% |
| BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. 0.35% | Webster Financial Corp 1.35% |
| Cytokinetics, Inc. 0.35% | M&T Bank Corp 1.35% |
| MaxLinear, Inc. 0.34% | Commerce Bancshares Inc/MO 1.34% |
| Argan, Inc. 0.34% | Columbia Banking System Inc 1.34% |
| JFrog Ltd. 0.31% | Regions Financial Corp 1.34% |
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.
| IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | KRE State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Regional Banking ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | State Street |
| What it is | Russell 2000 | SPDR S&P Regional Banking |
| Total return, 1 year | +21.2% | +16.1% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +3.7 pts | −1.4 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.19% | 0.35% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| Holdings | 2014 | 161 |
IWM in plain words
IWM is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2014 positions, with the top ten at 3.4%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
KRE in plain words
KRE is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Regional Banking. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.1% 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, 7% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 161 positions, with the top ten at 13.6%. It sat 5.2% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWM or KRE?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and KRE returned +16.1%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IWM or KRE?
- IWM charges 0.19% a year and KRE charges 0.35%, so IWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IWM and KRE overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IWM and 7% of KRE by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 9% 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, IWM against KRE, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWM-KRE Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources