Get alerts

Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

IWM vs SPY

iShares Russell 2000 ETF and SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust.

IWM and SPY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
SPY
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
Where it sitsCore fundCore fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isRussell 2000S&P 500, book from IVV
Total return, 1 year+26.4%+20.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+20.0%+20.0%
Gap to the S&P 500+6.5 pts+0.0 pts
Expense ratio0.19%not published
Already in the S&P 5000.0%100.0%
Holdings2014504

IWM in plain words

IWM is a index equity fund tracking Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +26.4% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% 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%.

SPY in plain words

SPY is a index equity fund tracking S&P 500, book from IVV. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +20.0% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 504 positions, with the top ten at 36.4%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWM or SPY?
In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +26.4% and SPY returned +20.0%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
How much do IWM and SPY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IWM and 100% of SPY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Cite this page. ETFIQ, IWM against SPY, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWM-SPY.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. ETFIQ publishes the same fields for every fund and suggests no allocation. Standards and sources