AVDV vs IWM: 1% overlap
Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF share 1.5% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
Different holding dates. These holdings were published about 5 months apart — AVDV as of 2026-02-28, the rest through 2026-07-23. Each fund is compared using its most recent file, so any trading in between shows up as a difference.
You would hold two tickers and get the diversification of 2.0. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
AVDV and IWM hold 50 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in AVDV | in IWM | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| TXG | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| CASH | 1.2% | 0.2% | 1.0% |
| ORA | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| CSTM | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| MRX | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| AIR | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| NHC | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| PLUS | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| SMR | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| APAM | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
Where AVDV and IWM differ
Sector weights as a share of each fund, ordered by the size of the gap rather than the size of the sector — two funds that overlap heavily still usually diverge somewhere.
| Sector | AVDV | IWM | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified | 20.7% | 0.0% | +20.7pp |
| Health Care | 1.8% | 19.9% | −18.0pp |
| Materials | 15.6% | 4.2% | +11.4pp |
| Information Technology | 4.8% | 12.8% | −8.1pp |
| Financials | 14.1% | 19.0% | −4.9pp |
| Real Estate | 1.4% | 5.9% | −4.5pp |
| Industrials | 18.9% | 14.7% | +4.2pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 10.6% | 9.4% | +1.2pp |
Δ is AVDV minus IWM, in percentage points. Sector data is not published by every issuer, so “Unclassified” is a real category rather than a gap in the table.
What each fund holds alone
97.2% of AVDV by weight, held in no part of IWM.
96.5% of IWM by weight, held in no part of AVDV.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| AVDV | IWM | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 9.0% | 3.3% |
| Positions held | 1,646 | 1,967 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $36 | $19 |
Cost is the expense ratio applied to $10,000; it excludes any brokerage commission, bid-ask spread or tax consequence. Figures are facts about the funds, not a suggestion about which to hold.
Frequently asked
How much do AVDV and IWM overlap?
AVDV and IWM overlap 1.5% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 50 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (AVDV as of 2026-02-28, IWM as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between AVDV and IWM calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If AVDV holds a stock at 6% and IWM holds the same stock at 4%, 4% counts as shared. The result is bounded between 0% and 100%, and it is computed after looking through any fund-of-funds to the underlying holdings.
Is it redundant to hold both AVDV and IWM?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 1.5% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does AVDV own that IWM doesn't?
AVDV holds 1,646 positions and IWM holds 1,967; 1,596 of AVDV's positions don't appear in IWM at all, and they are 97.2% of AVDV by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares AVDV and IWM. Paste your whole portfolio — brokerage, 401(k), IRA — and see the overlap across every fund at once, plus what you actually own underneath them and your own Effective Funds number. Free, no account, nothing stored.
X-ray my portfolio — free →Watch AVDV vs IWM
We re-read both funds’ published holdings every weeknight. Leave an address and we'll tell you when what's inside actually changes.
Not sending yet — email alerts are built but switched off, and you'll be among the first when they turn on. No spam, one-click unsubscribe.
Related comparisons
Sources: issuer holdings files, AVDV as of 2026-02-28, IWM as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.