Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
AVEM vs IWB: how they differ
AVEM and IWB hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and AVEM returned more over the year.
Avantis Emerging Markets Equity ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, AVEM and IWB hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | AVEM | IWB |
|---|---|---|
| Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd | 0.16% | 0.05% |
| Budimex SA | 0.03% | 0.07% |
| Telekom Malaysia Bhd | 0.02% | 0.25% |
| Truworths International Ltd | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| Engie Energia Chile SA | 0.02% | 0.10% |
| MTN Group Ltd | 0.17% | 0.01% |
| Motor Oil Hellas Corinth Refineries SA | 0.04% | 0.01% |
| Mr Price Group Ltd | 0.03% | 0.01% |
| Page Industries Ltd | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| Sanlam Ltd | 0.05% | 0.01% |
| Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| Indian Energy Exchange Ltd | 0.01% | 0.02% |
| Only in AVEM | Only in IWB |
|---|---|
| SK hynix Inc 7.83% | NVIDIA 7.26% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 6.33% | APPLE 6.73% |
| Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 5.70% | MICROSOFT 5.21% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 4.11% | AMAZON.COM INC 3.49% |
| Tencent Holdings Ltd 1.51% | ALPHABET CLASS A 2.77% |
| MediaTek Inc 1.11% | BROADCOM INC 2.40% |
| China Construction Bank Corp 0.89% | ALPHABET CLASS C 2.24% |
| Alibaba Group Holding Ltd 0.81% | META PLATFORMS CLASS A 2.02% |
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 May 31, 2026 and Sep 10, 2026.
| AVEM Avantis Emerging Markets Equity ETF | IWB iShares Russell 1000 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Avantis | iShares |
| What it is | Emerging Markets Equity | Russell 1000 |
| Total return, 1 year | +31.8% | +16.7% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +14.3 pts | −0.8 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.33% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 91.9% |
| Holdings | 3897 | 945 |
AVEM in plain words
AVEM is an index equity fund tracking the Emerging Markets Equity. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +31.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.33% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 3897 positions, with the top ten at 29.9%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
IWB in plain words
IWB is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 945 positions, with the top ten at 35.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, AVEM or IWB?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AVEM returned +31.8% and IWB returned +16.7%, so AVEM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, AVEM or IWB?
- AVEM charges 0.33% a year and IWB charges 0.15%, so IWB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do AVEM and IWB overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of AVEM and 92% of IWB 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, AVEM against IWB, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/avem-vs-iwb Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources