PlainIndex

ETF comparison

IVW vs SCHG

Both US Large Cap Growth.

iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF · Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

0 positions appear in both funds. Buying equal dollars of IVW and SCHG would leave roughly 0.0% of each dollar exposed to the same underlying securities.

IVW only 0.0% Shared 0.0% SCHG only 0.0%
In IVW only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In SCHG only
0 positions

Holdings data for IVW covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Holdings data for SCHG covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Side by side

IVW

iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF

iShares · US Large Cap Growth

89 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.18%
Net assets
$70.35B
TTM yield
0.38%
Top-10 conc.
—
SCHG

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF

Schwab · US Large Cap Growth

96 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.040%
Net assets
$55.63B
TTM yield
0.38%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

82
Cost
96
89
Tax efficiency
89
100
Liquidity
100
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
IVW sub-score SCHG

Tracking-quality sub-score is not yet computed for any fund — see methodology for which inputs are live.

Cost difference

SCHG is 14 bps cheaper than IVW. On a $100,000 position that's about $140/yr more in fees for IVW.

Fee figure is the annual expense charged on $100,000. It compounds over time — we publish a fuller cost-projection calculator on the methodology page.

Top shared holdings

0 shared in total

No shared holdings between these funds.

Only in IVW

0 total

Every IVW position is also held by SCHG.

Only in SCHG

0 total

Every SCHG position is also held by IVW.

Holdings overlap is the sum of min(weight_a, weight_b) over positions matched on ISIN (CUSIP fallback). Methodology: see /methodology/.

Comparing two funds doesn't endorse swapping one for the other. Tax-lot history, account type, and personal goals matter — PlainIndex publishes data and methodology, not investment advice.