PlainIndex

ETF comparison

IWM vs XLG

US Small Cap vs US Large Cap.

iShares Russell 2000 ETF · Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

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

IWM only 0.0% Shared 0.0% XLG only 0.0%
In IWM only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In XLG only
0 positions

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

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

Side by side

IWM

iShares Russell 2000 ETF

iShares · US Small Cap

88 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.19%
Net assets
$76.88B
TTM yield
0.91%
Top-10 conc.
—
XLG

Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF

Invesco · US Large Cap

88 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.20%
Net assets
$10.67B
TTM yield
0.63%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

81
Cost
80
87
Tax efficiency
88
100
Liquidity
100
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
IWM sub-score XLG

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

Cost difference

IWM is 1 bps cheaper than XLG. On a $100,000 position that's about $10/yr more in fees for XLG.

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 IWM

0 total

Every IWM position is also held by XLG.

Only in XLG

0 total

Every XLG position is also held by IWM.

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.