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 VBK: how they differ

IWM and VBK hold 24% of their weight in the same names, and IWM returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 2000 ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWM and VBK hold 24% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWM and VBK both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWMVBK
Hut 8 Corp.0.37%0.33%
Cytokinetics, Inc.0.35%0.33%
BrightSpring Health Services, Inc.0.35%0.32%
MaxLinear, Inc.0.34%0.31%
Argan, Inc.0.34%0.30%
Krystal Biotech, Inc.0.30%0.29%
CareTrust REIT, Inc.0.28%0.27%
Riot Platforms, Inc.0.30%0.26%
Cipher Digital, Inc.0.26%0.27%
ESCO Technologies, Inc.0.29%0.26%
StoneX Group, Inc.0.27%0.24%
Vaxcyte, Inc.0.24%0.24%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWMOnly in VBK
Moog, Inc. 0.38%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 1.27%
Viasat, Inc. 0.35%REVOLUTION Medicines Inc 1.07%
UMB Financial Corp. 0.33%Astera Labs Inc 1.05%
JFrog Ltd. 0.31%Natera Inc 1.04%
Old National Bancorp 0.28%Twilio Inc 0.88%
FirstCash Holdings, Inc. 0.28%Casey's General Stores Inc 0.83%
Compass, Inc. 0.28%Carpenter Technology Corp 0.82%
Alkermes plc 0.27%Curtiss-Wright Corp 0.79%

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 VBK on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
VBK
Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isRussell 2000Small-Cap Growth
Total return, 1 year+21.2%+13.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.7 pts−3.7 pts
Expense ratio0.19%0.05%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%10.2%
Holdings2014545

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.

VBK in plain words

VBK is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 10% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 545 positions, with the top ten at 9.3%. It sat 7.0% below its high of Aug 17, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWM or VBK?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and VBK returned +13.8%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWM or VBK?
IWM charges 0.19% a year and VBK charges 0.05%, so VBK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWM and VBK overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IWM and 10% of VBK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 24% 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 VBK, 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 VBK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWM-VBK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources