AWSHX vs IWD: 37% overlap
American Funds Washington Mutual A and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF share 36.8% 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 3 months apart — AWSHX as of 2026-04-30, 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 1.6. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
AWSHX and IWD hold 147 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in AWSHX | in IWD | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFT | 4.6% | 3.9% | 0.7% |
| AAPL | 2.4% | 5.9% | 3.5% |
| JPM | 1.4% | 2.6% | 1.1% |
| UNH | 1.5% | 1.1% | 0.5% |
| BAC | 1.6% | 1.0% | 0.6% |
| XOM | 1.0% | 1.8% | 0.8% |
| ABBV | 0.9% | 1.2% | 0.2% |
| PM | 3.4% | 0.8% | 2.6% |
| RTX | 1.4% | 0.8% | 0.6% |
| META | 1.4% | 0.7% | 0.7% |
Where AWSHX and IWD 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 | AWSHX | IWD | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified | 7.9% | 0.0% | +7.9pp |
| Financials | 15.0% | 19.6% | −4.6pp |
| Information Technology | 21.9% | 18.0% | +3.8pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 6.9% | 10.2% | −3.3pp |
| Energy | 3.3% | 6.1% | −2.8pp |
| Communication Services | 6.1% | 3.3% | +2.8pp |
| Health Care | 10.7% | 12.7% | −2.0pp |
| Materials | 2.0% | 3.7% | −1.7pp |
Δ is AWSHX minus IWD, 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
32.3% of AWSHX by weight, held in no part of IWD.
37.5% of IWD by weight, held in no part of AWSHX.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| AWSHX | IWD | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 29.9% | 27.8% |
| Positions held | 197 | 872 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $57 | $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 AWSHX and IWD overlap?
AWSHX and IWD overlap 36.8% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 147 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (AWSHX as of 2026-04-30, IWD as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between AWSHX and IWD calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If AWSHX holds a stock at 6% and IWD 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 AWSHX and IWD?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 36.8% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does AWSHX own that IWD doesn't?
AWSHX holds 197 positions and IWD holds 872; 50 of AWSHX's positions don't appear in IWD at all, and they are 32.3% of AWSHX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares AWSHX and IWD. 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 AWSHX vs IWD
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, AWSHX as of 2026-04-30, IWD as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.