IEMG vs IWF: 0% overlap
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF share 0.3% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
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
IEMG and IWF hold 6 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IEMG | in IWF | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NU | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| CASH | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| MTN | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.2% |
| SCCO | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| AUGO | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| FIVE | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Where IEMG and IWF 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 | IEMG | IWF | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 39.8% | 55.0% | −15.2pp |
| Financials | 18.1% | 4.7% | +13.4pp |
| Communication Services | 5.4% | 15.7% | −10.3pp |
| Materials | 5.8% | 0.3% | +5.5pp |
| Energy | 3.5% | 0.5% | +2.9pp |
| Health Care | 3.1% | 5.6% | −2.4pp |
| Utilities | 2.0% | 0.3% | +1.7pp |
| Consumer Staples | 3.0% | 1.3% | +1.6pp |
Δ is IEMG minus IWF, 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
98.2% of IEMG by weight, held in no part of IWF.
99.7% of IWF by weight, held in no part of IEMG.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| IEMG | IWF | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 33.6% | 56.1% |
| Positions held | 2,790 | 370 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $9 | $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 IEMG and IWF overlap?
IEMG and IWF overlap 0.3% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 6 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IEMG as of 2026-07-23, IWF as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between IEMG and IWF calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If IEMG holds a stock at 6% and IWF 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 IEMG and IWF?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 0.3% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IEMG own that IWF doesn't?
IEMG holds 2,790 positions and IWF holds 370; 2,783 of IEMG's positions don't appear in IWF at all, and they are 98.2% of IEMG by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IEMG and IWF. 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 IEMG vs IWF
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, IEMG as of 2026-07-23, IWF as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.