IWF vs XLC: 15% overlap
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF and Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund share 15.1% 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 1.8. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
IWF and XLC hold 11 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IWF | in XLC | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOOGL | 5.7% | 10.1% | 4.3% |
| GOOG | 4.7% | 8.1% | 3.4% |
| META | 3.4% | 18.5% | 15.1% |
| NFLX | 0.9% | 4.3% | 3.4% |
| CASH | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| TTWO | 0.1% | 4.3% | 4.2% |
| LYV | 0.1% | 4.5% | 4.4% |
| ECHO | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.3% |
| EA | 0.0% | 4.7% | 4.7% |
| TKO | 0.0% | 2.1% | 2.1% |
Where IWF and XLC 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 | XLC | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication Services | 15.7% | 99.8% | −84.1pp |
| Information Technology | 55.0% | 0.0% | +55.0pp |
| Industrials | 8.5% | 0.0% | +8.5pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 7.5% | 0.0% | +7.5pp |
| Health Care | 5.6% | 0.0% | +5.6pp |
| Financials | 4.7% | 0.0% | +4.7pp |
| Consumer Staples | 1.3% | 0.0% | +1.3pp |
| Energy | 0.5% | 0.0% | +0.5pp |
Δ is IWF minus XLC, 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
84.9% of IWF by weight, held in no part of XLC.
39.5% of XLC 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 | XLC | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 56.1% | 68.6% |
| Positions held | 370 | 25 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $19 | $8 |
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 XLC overlap?
IWF and XLC overlap 15.1% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 11 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IWF as of 2026-07-23, XLC as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between IWF and XLC 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 XLC 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 XLC?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 15.1% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IWF own that XLC doesn't?
IWF holds 370 positions and XLC holds 25; 358 of IWF's positions don't appear in XLC at all, and they are 84.9% of IWF by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IWF and XLC. 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 XLC
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, XLC as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.