Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IJT vs IWO: how they differ
IJT and IWO hold 39% of their weight in the same names, and IJT returned more over the year.
iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Growth ETF and iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IJT and IWO hold 39% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IJT | IWO |
|---|---|---|
| GLAUKOS | 0.81% | 0.65% |
| BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC | 1.09% | 0.61% |
| PROTAGONIST THERAPEUTICS | 1.03% | 0.59% |
| RYMAN HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES REIT | 0.98% | 0.55% |
| TG THERAPEUTICS | 0.86% | 0.53% |
| STONEX GROUP INC | 0.87% | 0.50% |
| ESCO TECHNOLOGIES | 0.82% | 0.47% |
| FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP | 0.82% | 0.46% |
| ZURN ELKAY WATER SOLUTIONS CORP | 0.80% | 0.45% |
| KODIAK GAS SERVICES INC | 0.72% | 0.42% |
| ALKERMES | 0.91% | 0.40% |
| ENPRO | 0.73% | 0.39% |
| Only in IJT | Only in IWO |
|---|---|
| CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS 1.29% | MOOG INC CLASS A 0.69% |
| VIASAT INC 1.19% | JFROG 0.64% |
| FORMFACTOR INC 1.03% | BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC 0.62% |
| MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SPORTS CLASS 0.83% | FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS INC 0.62% |
| ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES 0.82% | INTERDIGITAL INC 0.60% |
| ETSY 0.80% | KRYSTAL BIOTECH 0.59% |
| EVERUS CONSTRUCTION GROUP 0.69% | PRAXIS PRECISION MEDICINES 0.56% |
| JBT MAREL 0.69% | TWIST BIOSCIENCE 0.54% |
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.
| IJT iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Growth ETF | IWO iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | S&P Small-Cap 600 Growth | Russell 2000 Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.6% | +17.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +0.1 pts | −0.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.24% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 355 | 970 |
IJT in plain words
IJT is an index equity fund tracking the S&P Small-Cap 600 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% 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 355 positions, with the top ten at 10.1%. It sat 7.0% below its high of Aug 4, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
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 Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 970 positions, with the top ten at 6.2%. It sat 7.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IJT or IWO?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IJT returned +17.6% and IWO returned +17.0%, so IJT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IJT or IWO?
- IJT charges 0.18% a year and IWO charges 0.24%, so IJT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IJT and IWO overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IJT and 0% of IWO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 39% 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, IJT against IWO, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ijt-vs-iwo Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources