Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IWO vs SCHD: how they differ
IWO and SCHD hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and SCHD returned more over the year.
iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IWO and SCHD hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IWO | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Moelis & Co. | 0.23% | 0.13% |
| Artisan Partners Asset Management, Inc. | 0.08% | 0.07% |
| Marzetti Co. (The) | 0.12% | 0.06% |
| Cohen & Steers, Inc. | 0.12% | 0.05% |
| City Holding Co. | 0.06% | 0.04% |
| Interparfums, Inc. | 0.12% | 0.04% |
| Lakeland Financial Corp. | 0.06% | 0.04% |
| Buckle, Inc. (The) | 0.08% | 0.04% |
| Insperity, Inc. | 0.09% | 0.03% |
| Wendy's Co. (The) | 0.08% | 0.03% |
| Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corp. | 0.01% | 0.04% |
| Oxford Industries, Inc. | 0.01% | 0.02% |
| Only in IWO | Only in SCHD |
|---|---|
| Moog, Inc. 0.73% | QUALCOMM Inc 6.75% |
| BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. 0.68% | Texas Instruments Inc 5.92% |
| MaxLinear, Inc. 0.67% | UnitedHealth Group Inc 5.10% |
| Argan, Inc. 0.66% | Coca-Cola Co/The 3.96% |
| JFrog Ltd. 0.60% | Merck & Co Inc 3.87% |
| Krystal Biotech, Inc. 0.58% | Chevron Corp 3.84% |
| ESCO Technologies, Inc. 0.56% | Verizon Communications Inc 3.66% |
| FirstCash Holdings, Inc. 0.54% | Procter & Gamble Co/The 3.55% |
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 and May 31, 2026.
| IWO iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF | SCHD Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Schwab |
| What it is | Russell 2000 Growth | US dividend |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.0% | +27.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −0.5 pts | +10.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.24% | 0.06% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 95.1% |
| Holdings | 1133 | 99 |
IWO in plain words
IWO is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.24% 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 1133 positions, with the top ten at 6.1%. It sat 7.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
SCHD in plain words
SCHD is an index equity fund tracking the US dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 99 positions, with the top ten at 43.7%. It sat 3.1% below its high of Aug 24, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IWO or SCHD?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWO returned +17.0% and SCHD returned +27.6%, so SCHD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IWO or SCHD?
- IWO charges 0.24% a year and SCHD charges 0.06%, so SCHD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IWO and SCHD overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IWO and 95% of SCHD by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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, IWO against SCHD, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IWO-SCHD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources