IWF vs SCHG: Holdings Overlap
IWFiShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
iShares · 387 holdings · $127.3B · as of 2026-03-31
SCHGSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Schwab · 193 holdings · $62.4B · as of 2026-05-31
Holdings snapshots are 61 days apart (IWF: 2026-03-31, SCHG: 2026-05-31). Weights and index membership change between snapshots, so the true current overlap is typically higher than shown. For funds tracking the same index, the gap can be 5–15 points.
How similar are IWF and SCHG?
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF, by iShares) holds 387 positions; Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG, by Schwab) holds 193. They have 149 holdings in common, and by portfolio weight the two funds are 76.9% identical. In practical terms the pair is heavily overlapping, with largely the same stocks driving both funds.
- Overlap by Weight
- 76.9%Sum of the smaller weight of each shared holding
- Shared Holdings
- 149IWF holds 387 · SCHG holds 193
- Weight in Shared Holdings
- IWF 83%·SCHG 91%Share of each fund's weight in stocks both funds own
Based on each fund's latest official holdings. How is this calculated?
What makes each fund different
Only in IWF
238 of 387 positions (16.5% of the fund) are not held by SCHG. Showing the top 30 by weight.
Sector Breakdown
| Sector | IWF | SCHG |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 49.2% | 45.9% |
| Communication Services | 12.4% | 15.3% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 13.1% | 12.3% |
| Health Care | 8.0% | 8.4% |
| Financials | 5.9% | 6.8% |
| Other Sectors | 11.1% | 11.2% |
Share of each fund's portfolio weight by GICS-style sector, compiled from issuer fund data and our own classification of the holdings, not the issuers' published sector charts.
Performance
| Fund | 1M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y (ann.) | 5Y (ann.) | 10Y (ann.) | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IWF | +2.7% | +5.5% | +13.1% | +22.0% | +12.6% | +17.8% | 0.35% |
| SCHG | +4.3% | +9.9% | +19.1% | +24.1% | +14.0% | +18.6% | 0.37% |
Total returns including dividends, from adjusted daily closes as of 2026-08-07. 3Y/5Y/10Y are annualized. Yield is trailing-12-month distributions over the last close. Past performance does not predict future results.
Project the growth of $10,000 in IWF vs SCHG →
Shared Holdings(149)
The top 10 shared positions account for 69% of the overlap, led by NVDA, AAPL and MSFT.
12.92% | 11.01% | 11.01% | |
11.64% | 9.83% | 9.83% | |
8.82% | 7.17% | 7.17% | |
4.66% | 5.67% | 4.66% | |
4.79% | 4.55% | 4.55% | |
3.55% | 3.91% | 3.55% | |
3.54% | 4.75% | 3.54% | |
3.46% | 3.45% | 3.45% | |
2.87% | 3.78% | 2.87% | |
2.66% | 3.05% | 2.66% | |
1.84% | 1.92% | 1.84% | |
1.60% | 1.48% | 1.48% | |
1.45% | 1.40% | 1.40% | |
1.47% | 1.27% | 1.27% | |
1.15% | 1.25% | 1.15% | |
1.06% | 1.18% | 1.06% | |
0.85% | 0.91% | 0.85% | |
0.70% | 0.88% | 0.70% | |
0.69% | 2.93% | 0.69% | |
0.59% | 0.53% | 0.53% | |
0.52% | 0.51% | 0.51% | |
0.46% | 0.47% | 0.46% | |
0.46% | 0.79% | 0.46% | |
0.46% | 0.57% | 0.46% | |
0.41% | 0.40% | 0.40% |
Frequently Asked Questions
How much do IWF and SCHG overlap?
IWF and SCHG overlap by 76.9% of portfolio weight. They share 149 holdings (IWF holds 387 positions and SCHG holds 193), based on each fund's latest SEC-reported holdings.
Is it redundant to own both IWF and SCHG?
The two portfolios are 76.9% identical by weight. Owning both mostly doubles down on the shared core rather than diversifying: the same large positions drive both funds.
What are the biggest shared holdings of IWF and SCHG?
The largest positions held by both funds are NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, AMZN and AVGO. Together the top 10 shared positions account for 69% of the total overlap.
What does IWF own that SCHG doesn't?
238 positions (16.5% of IWF) are unique to IWF, led by ABBV, LRCX and HD. In the other direction, 44 positions (9.2% of SCHG) are unique to SCHG.