IWD vs LGLV: Differences, Returns & Fees

IWD and LGLV hold 25% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned +26.4% over the year. Net assets: $82.9bn on Oct 9, 2026 for iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF, and $1.1bn on Oct 8, 2026 for State Street SPDR US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF.

LGLV costs 0.06 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 23.1 points; IWD is far larger, $82.3bn against $1.1bn.

IWD vs LGLV: Differences, Returns & Fees
IWDLGLV
Expense ratio0.18%0.12%
Net assets, as of Oct 8, 2026$82.3bn$1.1bn
Total return, 1 year+26.4%+3.3%
What it tracksRussell 1000 Value Indexnot read by ETFIQ
Holdings in common25%
Top ten holdings, share of the fund30.0%15.8%
Below its high6.4%, high on Jul 28, 2026

Holdings in common uses holdings dated Oct 8, 2026 and Oct 9, 2026.

+26.4%
IWD total return, 1 year
+3.3%
LGLV total return, 1 year
0.18%
IWD expense ratio
0.12%
LGLV expense ratio

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWD and LGLV hold 25% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Oct 8, 2026 and Oct 9, 2026.

half

25% in common

Positions both hold, largest shared weight first
Holding IWD LGLV
CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.26% 1.08%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.70% 1.04%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B 2.59% 0.97%
PROCTER & GAMBLE 0.95% 0.89%
MICROSOFT 5.35% 0.82%
COCA-COLA 0.82% 1.23%
APPLE 6.01% 0.78%
ABBVIE 1.21% 0.72%
WALMART 1.20% 0.67%
LINDE PLC 0.60% 0.84%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 1.87% 0.60%
RTX 0.68% 0.51%
Only in IWD
AMAZON.COM INC 6.28%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 2.40%
INTEL CORPORATION 1.29%
CHEVRON 1.06%
MERCK & CO INC 0.97%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP 0.92%
BANK OF AMERICA 0.88%
PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL 0.85%
Only in LGLV
VISA INC CLASS A SHARES 1.07%
MASTERCARD INC A 0.87%
AMPHENOL CORP CL A 0.76%
DARDEN RESTAURANTS INC 0.74%
CINTAS CORP 0.62%
CENCORA INC 0.54%
HEICO CORP 0.48%
ALPHABET INC CL A 0.42%

Check overlap with more funds →

On the same fields

IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
LGLV
State Street SPDR US Large Cap Low Volatility Index ETF
Where it sits Stock ETF Stock ETF
What it is Tracks the Russell 1000 value Tracks an index
Total return, 1 year +26.4% +3.3%
Its benchmark over the same days +26.5% (VONV) not published
Gap to its benchmark −0.1 pts vs VONV not available
Expense ratio 0.18% 0.12%
Already in the S&P 500 90.0% 83.1%
Holdings 871 171
Net assets, IWD as of Oct 9, 2026 and LGLV as of Oct 8, 2026 $82.9bn $1.1bn

IWD and LGLV on the fields both publish, as of Oct 9, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

About IWD

IWD tracks the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +26.4% with distributions reinvested, against +26.5% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 9, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 871 positions, with the top ten at 30.0%.

About LGLV

LGLV tracks an index. Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +3.3% with distributions reinvested. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.12% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 8, 2026, 83% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 171 positions, with the top ten at 15.8%. It sat 6.4% below its high of Jul 28, 2026 on Oct 9, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWD or LGLV?
In the year to Oct 9, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWD returned +26.4% and LGLV +3.3%.
Which is cheaper, IWD or LGLV?
LGLV is cheaper, by 0.06 percentage points a year. That is about $6 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWD and LGLV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 90% of IWD and 83% of LGLV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown

ETFIQ, IWD against LGLV, data as of Oct 9, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwd-vs-lglv

Open data

Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.