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

IWM vs IWO: how they differ

IWM and IWO hold 55% of their weight in the same names, and IWM returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 2000 ETF and iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWM and IWO hold 55% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWM and IWO both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWMIWO
MOOG INC CLASS A0.34%0.69%
GLAUKOS0.32%0.65%
JFROG0.32%0.64%
BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC0.31%0.62%
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC0.31%0.61%
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS INC0.31%0.62%
HUT CORP0.31%0.32%
INTERDIGITAL INC0.30%0.60%
KRYSTAL BIOTECH0.30%0.59%
PROTAGONIST THERAPEUTICS0.29%0.59%
PRAXIS PRECISION MEDICINES0.28%0.56%
RYMAN HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES REIT0.27%0.55%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWMOnly in IWO
VIASAT INC 0.31%AMPCO PITTSBURGH CORP 0.01%
CARETRUST REIT 0.29%ATRIUM THERAPEUTICS INC 0.01%
JACKSON FINANCIAL CLASS A 0.28%BETTER HOME FINANCE HOLDING CLASS 0.01%
PBF ENERGY CLASS A 0.25%BLACK ROCK COFFEE BAR CLASS A 0.01%
MATSON INC 0.23%CAMP4 THERAPEUTICS CORP 0.01%
TEREX 0.23%CODEXIS 0.01%
TERRENO REALTY REIT 0.23%CONNECT BIOPHARMA HOLDINGS LTD 0.01%
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES 0.22%CREXENDO INC 0.01%

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.

IWM and IWO on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
IWO
iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isRussell 2000Russell 2000 Growth
Total return, 1 year+21.2%+17.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.7 pts−0.5 pts
Expense ratio0.19%0.24%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings1749970

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.

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, IWM or IWO?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and IWO returned +17.0%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWM or IWO?
IWM charges 0.19% a year and IWO charges 0.24%, so IWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWM and IWO overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IWM and 0% of IWO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 55% 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.

IWM against IWO, 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, IWM against IWO, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-iwo Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources