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

IWM vs SDY: how they differ

IWM and SDY hold 3% 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) Dividend ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWM and SDY hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWM and SDY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWMSDY
UMB Financial Corp.0.33%0.45%
United Bankshares, Inc.0.19%0.29%
Black Hills Corp.0.18%0.26%
New Jersey Resources Corp.0.18%0.27%
ONE Gas, Inc.0.15%0.22%
Spire, Inc.0.14%0.23%
Badger Meter, Inc.0.14%0.27%
Franklin Electric Co., Inc.0.13%0.18%
Polaris, Inc.0.12%0.16%
Community Financial System, Inc.0.11%0.16%
Avista Corp.0.11%0.16%
American States Water Co.0.10%0.15%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWMOnly in SDY
Moog, Inc. 0.38%Verizon Communications Inc 2.15%
Hut 8 Corp. 0.37%Realty Income Corp 2.14%
Viasat, Inc. 0.35%Kenvue Inc 1.76%
BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. 0.35%Kimberly-Clark Corp 1.75%
Cytokinetics, Inc. 0.35%AbbVie Inc 1.63%
MaxLinear, Inc. 0.34%QUALCOMM Inc 1.57%
Argan, Inc. 0.34%Texas Instruments Inc 1.56%
JFrog Ltd. 0.31%Target Corp 1.55%

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 and SDY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
SDY
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Dividend ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isRussell 2000SPDR S&P Dividend
Total return, 1 year+21.2%+11.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.7 pts−6.5 pts
Expense ratio0.19%0.35%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%84.6%
Holdings2014155

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.

SDY in plain words

SDY is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.0% 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, 85% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 155 positions, with the top ten at 17.1%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWM or SDY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and SDY returned +11.0%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWM or SDY?
IWM charges 0.19% a year and SDY charges 0.35%, so IWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWM and SDY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IWM and 85% of SDY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 3% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources