IWF vs VB: 5% overlap
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap ETF share 4.6% 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
IWF and VB hold 182 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IWF | in VB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALAB | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| CASH | 0.1% | 1.7% | 1.6% |
| CRDO | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.4% |
| NTRA | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| RVMD | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.3% |
| EME | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| JBL | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.4% |
| NRG | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| CRS | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| CASY | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
Where IWF and VB 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 | IWF | VB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 55.0% | 16.1% | +38.9pp |
| Communication Services | 15.7% | 3.0% | +12.7pp |
| Industrials | 8.5% | 21.0% | −12.5pp |
| Financials | 4.7% | 12.7% | −8.0pp |
| Real Estate | 0.4% | 7.1% | −6.7pp |
| Health Care | 5.6% | 11.9% | −6.3pp |
| Materials | 0.3% | 5.3% | −5.1pp |
| Energy | 0.5% | 3.7% | −3.2pp |
Δ is IWF minus VB, 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
95.4% of IWF by weight, held in no part of VB.
71.3% of VB by weight, held in no part of IWF.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| IWF | VB | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 56.1% | 5.6% |
| Positions held | 370 | 1,308 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $19 | $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 IWF and VB overlap?
IWF and VB overlap 4.6% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 182 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IWF as of 2026-07-23, VB as of 2026-06-30).
How is the overlap between IWF and VB calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If IWF holds a stock at 6% and VB 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 IWF and VB?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 4.6% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IWF own that VB doesn't?
IWF holds 370 positions and VB holds 1,308; 187 of IWF's positions don't appear in VB at all, and they are 95.4% of IWF by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IWF and VB. 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 IWF vs VB
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, IWF as of 2026-07-23, VB as of 2026-06-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.