IVW vs PRWCX: 28% overlap
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF and T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation share 28.4% 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 4 months apart — PRWCX as of 2026-03-31, 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 1.7. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
IVW and PRWCX hold 22 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IVW | in PRWCX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFT | 8.2% | 4.2% | 4.0% |
| META | 3.9% | 3.7% | 0.2% |
| AAPL | 6.9% | 3.6% | 3.3% |
| AMZN | 3.5% | 4.8% | 1.3% |
| NVDA | 14.7% | 3.0% | 11.7% |
| GOOGL | 5.4% | 2.3% | 3.2% |
| AVGO | 5.4% | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| AMD | 2.6% | 1.4% | 1.2% |
| LLY | 2.7% | 0.8% | 1.9% |
| MA | 0.8% | 0.9% | 0.1% |
Where IVW and PRWCX 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 | IVW | PRWCX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 52.5% | 17.8% | +34.7pp |
| Unclassified | 0.0% | 20.3% | −20.3pp |
| Treasuries | 0.0% | 18.2% | −18.2pp |
| Communication Services | 14.7% | 6.7% | +8.0pp |
| Financials | 9.2% | 2.4% | +6.8pp |
| Utilities | 0.4% | 7.1% | −6.7pp |
| Health Care | 6.3% | 12.2% | −5.9pp |
| Industrials | 6.6% | 0.9% | +5.8pp |
Δ is IVW minus PRWCX, 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
36.6% of IVW by weight, held in no part of PRWCX.
63.6% of PRWCX by weight, held in no part of IVW.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| IVW | PRWCX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 58.2% | 46.0% |
| Positions held | 149 | 151 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $18 | $72 |
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 IVW and PRWCX overlap?
IVW and PRWCX overlap 28.4% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 22 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IVW as of 2026-07-23, PRWCX as of 2026-03-31).
How is the overlap between IVW and PRWCX calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If IVW holds a stock at 6% and PRWCX 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 IVW and PRWCX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 28.4% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IVW own that PRWCX doesn't?
IVW holds 149 positions and PRWCX holds 151; 126 of IVW's positions don't appear in PRWCX at all, and they are 36.6% of IVW by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IVW and PRWCX. 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 IVW vs PRWCX
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, IVW as of 2026-07-23, PRWCX as of 2026-03-31. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.