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 VONG: how they differ

IWM and VONG hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and IWM returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 2000 ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWM and VONG hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWM and VONG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWMVONG
Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc.0.10%0.01%
Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.0.04%0.00%
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.0.06%0.00%
DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc.0.05%0.00%
Teradata Corp.0.10%0.00%
Trump Media & Technology Group Corp.0.04%0.00%
Wendy's Co. (The)0.04%0.00%
RH0.08%0.00%
nCino, Inc.0.06%0.00%
Liberty Capital Corp.0.00%0.00%
Liberty Capital Corp.0.02%0.00%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWMOnly in VONG
Moog, Inc. 0.38%NVIDIA Corp 13.09%
Hut 8 Corp. 0.37%Apple Inc 11.97%
Viasat, Inc. 0.35%Microsoft Corp 8.98%
BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. 0.35%Broadcom Inc 5.78%
Cytokinetics, Inc. 0.35%Amazon.com Inc 5.07%
MaxLinear, Inc. 0.34%Alphabet Inc 3.91%
Argan, Inc. 0.34%Tesla Inc 3.48%
UMB Financial Corp. 0.33%Meta Platforms Inc 3.20%

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 and May 31, 2026.

IWM and VONG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
VONG
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isRussell 2000Russell 1000 Growth
Total return, 1 year+21.2%+7.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.7 pts−10.3 pts
Expense ratio0.19%0.07%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%95.6%
Holdings2014387

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.

VONG in plain words

VONG is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 387 positions, with the top ten at 61.3%. It sat 4.9% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWM or VONG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and VONG returned +7.2%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWM or VONG?
IWM charges 0.19% a year and VONG charges 0.07%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWM and VONG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IWM and 96% of VONG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% 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 VONG, 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 VONG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWM-VONG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources