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

IYW vs ONEQ: how they differ

IYW and ONEQ hold 58% of their weight in the same names, and IYW returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Technology ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IYW and ONEQ hold 58% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IYW and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIYWONEQ
NVIDIA CORPORATION16.25%11.24%
APPLE INC.13.65%10.04%
ALPHABET INC.7.84%4.85%
ALPHABET INC.6.34%4.48%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION3.99%7.32%
BROADCOM INC.3.78%4.64%
META PLATFORMS, INC.2.81%3.03%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.2.98%2.38%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.3.50%1.84%
INTEL CORPORATION2.56%1.25%
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION1.99%0.87%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.1.86%0.78%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IYWOnly in ONEQ
ORACLE CORPORATION 1.67%AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORAT 1.32%TESLA INC 3.58%
AMPHENOL CORPORATION 1.10%WALMART INC 2.02%
SALESFORCE, INC. 0.99%CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.04%
CORNING INCORPORATED 0.79%COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP 0.93%
VERTIV HOLDINGS CO 0.77%NETFLIX INC 0.79%
SERVICENOW, INC. 0.57%LINDE PLC 0.50%
DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. 0.40%T-MOBILE US INC 0.45%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

IYW and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IYW
iShares U.S. Technology ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isU.S. TechnologyNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+34.9%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+17.4 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.21%
Already in the S&P 50095.5%87.4%
Holdings1391022

IYW in plain words

IYW is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +34.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.37% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 139 positions, with the top ten at 63.7%.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IYW or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IYW returned +34.9% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so IYW returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IYW or ONEQ?
IYW charges 0.37% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IYW and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of IYW and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 58% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources