IWD vs RGAGX: 25% overlap
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF and American Funds Growth Fund of America R6 share 25.2% 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 — RGAGX 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 1.7. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
IWD and RGAGX hold 178 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IWD | in RGAGX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFT | 3.9% | 4.0% | 0.1% |
| AMZN | 5.7% | 2.9% | 2.9% |
| AAPL | 5.9% | 1.8% | 4.1% |
| PM | 0.8% | 0.9% | 0.1% |
| META | 0.7% | 4.2% | 3.6% |
| INTC | 1.2% | 0.5% | 0.7% |
| COST | 0.6% | 0.5% | 0.2% |
| WELL | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.1% |
| BAC | 1.0% | 0.3% | 0.7% |
| CRM | 0.3% | 0.4% | 0.0% |
Where IWD and RGAGX 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 | IWD | RGAGX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financials | 19.6% | 6.5% | +13.0pp |
| Information Technology | 18.0% | 30.6% | −12.5pp |
| Communication Services | 3.3% | 13.2% | −9.9pp |
| Unclassified | 0.0% | 7.6% | −7.6pp |
| Consumer Staples | 7.4% | 2.4% | +5.0pp |
| Energy | 6.1% | 1.9% | +4.1pp |
| Utilities | 3.9% | 0.5% | +3.4pp |
| Real Estate | 3.7% | 0.6% | +3.1pp |
Δ is IWD minus RGAGX, 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
42.3% of IWD by weight, held in no part of RGAGX.
55.8% of RGAGX by weight, held in no part of IWD.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| IWD | RGAGX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 27.8% | 36.7% |
| Positions held | 872 | 309 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $19 | $30 |
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 IWD and RGAGX overlap?
IWD and RGAGX overlap 25.2% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 178 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IWD as of 2026-07-23, RGAGX as of 2026-02-28).
How is the overlap between IWD and RGAGX calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If IWD holds a stock at 6% and RGAGX 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 IWD and RGAGX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 25.2% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IWD own that RGAGX doesn't?
IWD holds 872 positions and RGAGX holds 309; 693 of IWD's positions don't appear in RGAGX at all, and they are 42.3% of IWD by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IWD and RGAGX. 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 IWD vs RGAGX
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, IWD as of 2026-07-23, RGAGX as of 2026-02-28. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.