Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IEMG vs IWM: how they differ
IEMG and IWM hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IEMG returned more over the year.
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IEMG and IWM hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IEMG | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY | 0.46% | 0.29% |
| VALTERRA PLATINUM LTD | 0.17% | 0.16% |
| ABSA GROUP | 0.08% | 0.13% |
| OUTSURANCE GROUP | 0.03% | 0.15% |
| HELLENIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORGANI | 0.02% | 0.07% |
| RESILIENT PROP LTD | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| AMERICANA RESTAURANTS INTERNATIONA | 0.01% | 0.08% |
| CYFROWY POLSAT SA | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| INR CASH | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| KUWAIT TELECOMMUNICATIONS | 0.01% | 0.07% |
| MOTUS HOLD LTD SHS | 0.01% | 0.14% |
| PAGSEGURO DIGITAL LTD CLASS A | 0.01% | 0.06% |
| Only in IEMG | Only in IWM |
|---|---|
| TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 13.46% | MOOG INC CLASS A 0.34% |
| SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 6.62% | UMB FINANCIAL 0.34% |
| SK HYNIX 5.38% | CYTOKINETICS 0.32% |
| TENCENT HOLDINGS 2.35% | GLAUKOS 0.32% |
| ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING 1.61% | JFROG 0.32% |
| MEDIATEK 1.52% | BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC 0.31% |
| SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS NON VOTING PRE 0.86% | BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC 0.31% |
| CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORP H 0.74% | FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS INC 0.31% |
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 | IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Core MSCI Emerging Markets | Russell 2000 |
| Total return, 1 year | +30.6% | +21.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +13.1 pts | +3.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.19% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 1832 | 1749 |
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.
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 Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1749 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IEMG or IWM?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IEMG returned +30.6% and IWM returned +21.2%, so IEMG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IEMG or IWM?
- IEMG charges 0.09% a year and IWM charges 0.19%, so IEMG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IEMG and IWM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IEMG and 0% of IWM 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, IEMG against IWM, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iemg-vs-iwm Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources