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 IXUS: how they differ

IWM and IXUS hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and IXUS returned more over the year.

iShares Russell 2000 ETF and iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IWM and IXUS hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IWM and IXUS both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIWMIXUS
AAR0.16%0.32%
CORE NATURAL RESOURCES0.16%0.14%
MOELIS CLASS A0.12%0.28%
BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY0.29%0.09%
ORMAT TECH INC0.20%0.08%
UNITED COMMUNITY BANKS INC0.13%0.07%
ARCOSA0.24%0.05%
MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES0.07%0.05%
VALARIS LTD0.16%0.05%
C3 AI CLASS A0.05%0.29%
NEXTNAV0.05%0.05%
FB FINANCIAL0.08%0.04%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IWMOnly in IXUS
MOOG INC CLASS A 0.34%TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 4.49%
UMB FINANCIAL 0.34%SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS LTD 2.21%
CYTOKINETICS 0.32%SK HYNIX 1.79%
GLAUKOS 0.32%ASML HOLDING 1.55%
JFROG 0.32%HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.84%
BRIGHTSPRING HEALTH SERVICES INC 0.31%TENCENT HOLDINGS 0.78%
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC 0.31%ROCHE PS PAR AG 0.70%
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS INC 0.31%ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 0.68%

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 IXUS on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
IXUS
iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isRussell 2000Core MSCI Total International Stock
Total return, 1 year+21.2%+22.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.7 pts+4.7 pts
Expense ratio0.19%0.07%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%0.0%
Holdings17492540

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.

IXUS in plain words

IXUS is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI Total International Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% 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 2540 positions, with the top ten at 14.3%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IWM or IXUS?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IWM returned +21.2% and IXUS returned +22.2%, so IXUS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IWM or IXUS?
IWM charges 0.19% a year and IXUS charges 0.07%, so IXUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IWM and IXUS overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of IWM and 0% of IXUS by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 IXUS, 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 IXUS, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iwm-vs-ixus Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources