IGV vs IWM: Complete Comparison
iShares Expanded Tech-Software ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF โ overlap, correlation, performance & risk analysis
Visual Overlap
Price Performance
Historical price comparison over 3M
๐Performance Comparison
โ ๏ธRisk Metrics
Interpretation:
- ๐ Lower volatility = smoother ride
- โก Higher Sharpe/Sortino = better risk-adjusted returns
- โ ๏ธ Smaller max drawdown = less worst-case pain
- ๐ Beta > 1 = more volatile than S&P 500
โ๏ธHead-to-Head Comparison
๐ IWM wins this comparison
Key Factors
โถAdditional Metrics (5)
Bottom line: IWM wins with better expense ratio and number of holdings. Consider IWM for your portfolio, but IGV is still a solid choice if you prefer its specific advantages.
Detailed Overlap Analysis
49 shared holdings representing 4.9% portfolio overlap
Top Shared Holdings
| # | Stock | IGV Weight | IWM Weight | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | QBTS QBTS | 0.32% | 0.30% | 0.30% |
| 2 | IDCC IDCC | 0.30% | 0.32% | 0.30% |
| 3 | CVLT CVLT | 0.19% | 0.19% | 0.19% |
| 4 | CIFR CIFR | 0.18% | 0.18% | 0.18% |
| 5 | QLYS QLYS | 0.18% | 0.19% | 0.18% |
| 6 | RIOT RIOT | 0.18% | 0.19% | 0.18% |
| 7 | CORZ CORZ | 0.19% | 0.17% | 0.17% |
| 8 | MARA MARA | 0.18% | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| 9 | ACIW ACIW | 0.16% | 0.17% | 0.16% |
| 10 | SOUN SOUN | 0.17% | 0.15% | 0.15% |
Overlap by Sector
Showing top 5 sectors by overlap contribution
Top Holdings Only in IGV
Unique to IGV
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| PLTR | PLTR | 9.86% |
| MSFT | MSFT | 8.59% |
| CRM | CRM | 7.29% |
| ORCL | ORCL | 6.23% |
| INTU | INTU | 5.75% |
Top Holdings Only in IWM
Unique to IWM
| Symbol | Name | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| CRDO | CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP HOLDING LTD | 0.86% |
| BE | BLOOM ENERGY CLASS A CORP | 0.80% |
| FN | FABRINET | 0.62% |
| IONQ | IONQ INC | 0.51% |
| NXT | NEXTPOWER INC CLASS A | 0.44% |
Price Correlation
How We Calculate Overlap
We use the minimum weight method with normalization to calculate portfolio overlap:
Overlap = ฮฃ min(weightA, weightB) for each shared holdingNormalization: Holdings weights are normalized to sum to 100% before comparison. This ensures accurate overlap calculations even when analyzing partial holdings data (e.g., top 50 positions).
Conservative approach: We consider only the smaller allocation for each shared position, giving you a realistic view of true portfolio overlap.
๐ This analysis is based on publicly available holdings data. For the most current and complete holdings information, please visit the official ETF provider websites.
Want deeper analysis on IGV or IWM?
Complement your EigenDex analysis with these research tools.
Some links may be affiliate links. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support EigenDex as a free tool. We only recommend tools we believe provide genuine value to investors.