IEMG vs SCHB: 0% overlap
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF and Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF share 0.4% 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 2 months apart — SCHB as of 2026-05-31, 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
IEMG and SCHB hold 37 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IEMG | in SCHB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASH | 0.4% | 0.2% | 0.2% |
| HAL | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| BDX | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| MOH | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| SM | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| TRU | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| NXST | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ECL | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| MTN | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.2% |
| OUT | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Where IEMG and SCHB 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 | SCHB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financials | 18.1% | 11.1% | +7.0pp |
| Health Care | 3.1% | 8.4% | −5.3pp |
| Materials | 5.8% | 1.6% | +4.2pp |
| Communication Services | 5.4% | 9.6% | −4.2pp |
| Information Technology | 39.8% | 35.8% | +4.0pp |
| Unclassified | 0.0% | 3.5% | −3.5pp |
| Consumer Staples | 3.0% | 4.3% | −1.3pp |
| Industrials | 7.7% | 8.8% | −1.1pp |
Δ is IEMG minus SCHB, 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 SCHB.
99.3% of SCHB 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 | SCHB | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 33.6% | 34.9% |
| Positions held | 2,790 | 2,407 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $9 | $3 |
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 SCHB overlap?
IEMG and SCHB overlap 0.4% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 37 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IEMG as of 2026-07-23, SCHB as of 2026-05-31).
How is the overlap between IEMG and SCHB 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 SCHB 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 SCHB?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 0.4% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IEMG own that SCHB doesn't?
IEMG holds 2,790 positions and SCHB holds 2,407; 2,752 of IEMG's positions don't appear in SCHB at all, and they are 98.2% of IEMG by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IEMG and SCHB. 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 SCHB
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, SCHB as of 2026-05-31. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.