Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

IWF vs REMX: how they differ

Over the year REMX returned more, +21.9% against +7.0%, and IWF charges 0.18% against 0.53%.

iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWF and REMX hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWF and REMX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWFREMX
ALMONTY INDUSTRIES0.01%5.63%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWFOnly in REMX
NVIDIA 15.46%Pilbara Minerals Ltd 7.87%
APPLE 7.77%Albemarle Corp 7.63%
ALPHABET CLASS A 5.88%Lynas Rare Earths Ltd 6.67%
MICROSOFT 5.55%Mp Materials Corp 6.65%
BROADCOM INC 5.10%China Northern Rare Earth Group High-Te 6.58%
ALPHABET CLASS C 4.77%Lianyou Metals Co Ltd 5.83%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A 3.52%Sociedad Quimica Y Minera De Chile Sa 5.64%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY 3.35%Jinduicheng Molybdenum Co Ltd 5.23%

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.

IWF and REMX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
REMX
VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundThematic ETF
IssueriSharesVanEck
What it isRussell 1000 growthMiners and metals
Total return, 1 year+7.0%+21.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.5 pts+4.4 pts
Expense ratio0.18%0.53%
Already in the S&P 50093.6%7.6%
Holdings31530

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 315 positions, with the top ten at 57.3%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

REMX in plain words

By weight, 8% of REMX's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 63% of the fund across 30 positions, as published by its issuer for Sep 10, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +21.9% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 4.4 pts. It sits 67.6% below its all-time high of Apr 11, 2011.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWF or REMX?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWF returned +7.0% and REMX returned +21.9%, so REMX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWF or REMX?
IWF charges 0.18% a year and REMX charges 0.53%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWF and REMX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of IWF and 8% of REMX 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.
Are IWF and REMX the same kind of fund?
No. IWF is an index ETF and REMX is a thematic ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.

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.

IWF against REMX, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, IWF against REMX, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwf-vs-remx Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources