Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IEMG vs IWD: how they differ
IEMG and IWD hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and IEMG returned more over the year.
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IEMG and IWD hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IEMG | IWD |
|---|---|---|
| BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY | 0.46% | 0.13% |
| HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD | 0.06% | 0.08% |
| SOUTHERN COPPER CORP | 0.13% | 0.04% |
| MOTOR OIL (HELLAS) CORINTH REFINER | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| BUDIMEX SA | 0.02% | 0.14% |
| XP CLASS A INC | 0.06% | 0.02% |
| CCL PRODUCTS INDIA LTD | 0.01% | 0.08% |
| ENGIE ENERGIA CHILE SA | 0.01% | 0.18% |
| JBS N V NV CLASS A | 0.03% | 0.01% |
| LULU RETAIL HOLDINGS PLC | 0.01% | 0.03% |
| MR PRICE GROUP LTD | 0.02% | 0.01% |
| NEXUS SELECT TRUST REIT UNITS | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| Only in IEMG | Only in IWD |
|---|---|
| TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 13.46% | AMAZON.COM INC 6.04% |
| SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 6.62% | APPLE 5.83% |
| SK HYNIX 5.38% | MICROSOFT 4.93% |
| TENCENT HOLDINGS 2.35% | BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B 2.54% |
| ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING 1.61% | JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 2.54% |
| MEDIATEK 1.52% | EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 1.85% |
| SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS NON VOTING PRE 0.86% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.73% |
| CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP H 0.74% | INTEL CORPORATION 1.23% |
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 Sep 10, 2026.
| IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | IWD iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Core MSCI Emerging Markets | Russell 1000 value |
| Total return, 1 year | +30.6% | +27.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +13.1 pts | +9.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.18% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 90.2% |
| Holdings | 1832 | 814 |
IEMG in plain words
IEMG is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI Emerging Markets. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +30.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1832 positions, with the top ten at 34.0%. It sat 4.0% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
IWD in plain words
IWD is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 814 positions, with the top ten at 29.0%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IEMG or IWD?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IEMG returned +30.6% and IWD returned +27.4%, so IEMG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IEMG or IWD?
- IEMG charges 0.09% a year and IWD charges 0.18%, so IEMG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IEMG and IWD overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IEMG and 90% of IWD 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, IEMG against IWD, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iemg-vs-iwd Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources