SCHG vs IWF: Holdings Overlap
SCHGSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Schwab · 193 holdings · $62.4B · as of 2026-05-31
IWFiShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
iShares · 387 holdings · $127.3B · as of 2026-03-31
Holdings snapshots are 61 days apart (SCHG: 2026-05-31, IWF: 2026-03-31). 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 SCHG and IWF?
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG, by Schwab) holds 193 positions; iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF, by iShares) holds 387. 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
- 149SCHG holds 193 · IWF holds 387
- Weight in Shared Holdings
- SCHG 91%·IWF 83%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 SCHG
44 of 193 positions (9.2% of the fund) are not held by IWF. Showing the top 30 by weight.
Sector Breakdown
| Sector | SCHG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 45.9% | 49.2% |
| Communication Services | 15.3% | 12.4% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 12.3% | 13.1% |
| Health Care | 8.4% | 8.0% |
| Financials | 6.8% | 5.9% |
| Other Sectors | 11.2% | 11.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCHG | +4.3% | +9.9% | +19.1% | +24.1% | +14.0% | +18.6% | 0.37% |
| IWF | +2.7% | +5.5% | +13.1% | +22.0% | +12.6% | +17.8% | 0.35% |
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 SCHG vs IWF →
Shared Holdings(149)
The top 10 shared positions account for 69% of the overlap, led by NVDA, AAPL and MSFT.
11.01% | 12.92% | 11.01% | |
9.83% | 11.64% | 9.83% | |
7.17% | 8.82% | 7.17% | |
5.67% | 4.66% | 4.66% | |
4.55% | 4.79% | 4.55% | |
3.91% | 3.55% | 3.55% | |
4.75% | 3.54% | 3.54% | |
3.45% | 3.46% | 3.45% | |
3.78% | 2.87% | 2.87% | |
3.05% | 2.66% | 2.66% | |
1.92% | 1.84% | 1.84% | |
1.48% | 1.60% | 1.48% | |
1.40% | 1.45% | 1.40% | |
1.27% | 1.47% | 1.27% | |
1.25% | 1.15% | 1.15% | |
1.18% | 1.06% | 1.06% | |
0.91% | 0.85% | 0.85% | |
0.88% | 0.70% | 0.70% | |
2.93% | 0.69% | 0.69% | |
0.53% | 0.59% | 0.53% | |
0.51% | 0.52% | 0.51% | |
0.47% | 0.46% | 0.46% | |
0.79% | 0.46% | 0.46% | |
0.57% | 0.46% | 0.46% | |
0.40% | 0.41% | 0.40% |
Frequently Asked Questions
How much do SCHG and IWF overlap?
SCHG and IWF overlap by 76.9% of portfolio weight. They share 149 holdings (SCHG holds 193 positions and IWF holds 387), based on each fund's latest SEC-reported holdings.
Is it redundant to own both SCHG and IWF?
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 SCHG and IWF?
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 SCHG own that IWF doesn't?
44 positions (9.2% of SCHG) are unique to SCHG, led by UNH, LIN and TMO. In the other direction, 238 positions (16.5% of IWF) are unique to IWF.