PlainIndex

ETF comparison

IWR vs SCHM

Both US Mid Cap.

iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF · Schwab U.S. Mid-Cap ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

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

IWR only 0.0% Shared 0.0% SCHM only 0.0%
In IWR only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In SCHM only
0 positions

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

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

Side by side

IWR

iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF

iShares · US Mid Cap

88 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.18%
Net assets
$52.61B
TTM yield
1.19%
Top-10 conc.
—
SCHM

Schwab U.S. Mid-Cap ETF

Schwab · US Mid Cap

95 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.040%
Net assets
$14.26B
TTM yield
1.28%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

82
Cost
96
86
Tax efficiency
86
100
Liquidity
100
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
IWR sub-score SCHM

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

Cost difference

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

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 IWR

0 total

Every IWR position is also held by SCHM.

Only in SCHM

0 total

Every SCHM position is also held by IWR.

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.