IWM vs QQQM: 0% overlap
iShares Russell 2000 ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF share 0.0% 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 — QQQM 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 2.0. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
IWM and QQQM hold 0 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in IWM | in QQQM | Δ |
|---|
Where IWM and QQQM 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 | IWM | QQQM | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 12.8% | 48.9% | −36.1pp |
| Financials | 19.0% | 0.2% | +18.8pp |
| Health Care | 19.9% | 5.2% | +14.6pp |
| Communication Services | 2.5% | 15.6% | −13.1pp |
| Industrials | 14.7% | 3.0% | +11.7pp |
| Consumer Staples | 2.2% | 8.5% | −6.4pp |
| Real Estate | 5.9% | 0.1% | +5.8pp |
| Energy | 6.1% | 0.6% | +5.5pp |
Δ is IWM minus QQQM, 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
100.0% of IWM by weight, held in no part of QQQM.
99.7% of QQQM by weight, held in no part of IWM.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| IWM | QQQM | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 3.3% | 46.7% |
| Positions held | 1,967 | 103 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $19 | $15 |
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 IWM and QQQM overlap?
IWM and QQQM overlap 0.0% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 0 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (IWM as of 2026-07-23, QQQM as of 2026-02-28).
How is the overlap between IWM and QQQM calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If IWM holds a stock at 6% and QQQM 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 IWM and QQQM?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 0.0% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does IWM own that QQQM doesn't?
IWM holds 1,967 positions and QQQM holds 103; 1,966 of IWM's positions don't appear in QQQM at all, and they are 100.0% of IWM by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares IWM and QQQM. 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 IWM vs QQQM
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, IWM as of 2026-07-23, QQQM as of 2026-02-28. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.