Both funds come from IShares. IJR is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. IJR and IWR show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 2.01%. They share 67 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by EMN, ESI, and LKQ.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
Both funds come from IShares. IJR is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. IJR and IWR show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 2.01%. They share 67 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by EMN, ESI, and LKQ.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
Both funds come from IShares. IJR is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. IJR and IWR do not own much of the same portfolio weight. That usually means you are combining different parts of the market, with only a small amount of duplication through names like EMN, ESI, and LKQ.
Both funds come from IShares. IJR is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. Neither fund clearly dominates on breadth, so the practical difference is more about weighting, index construction, and cost. IJR has the lower expense ratio, while IWR charges more for its exposure.
The overlap is driven by a relatively small set of large shared positions. The top three shared holdings account for 9.44% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
Because IJR and IWR are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. IJR has the lower expense ratio, while IWR charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 9.44% of the full overlap score.
That helps show whether the score comes from a handful of giant shared positions or from a broader mix of common holdings.
Shared Sector Tilt
Sector tags are not consistently available for the biggest shared positions in this dataset, so this comparison leans more on the specific holdings than on sector labels.
These are the holdings contributing the most to the overlap score between IJR and IWR.
| Holding | Name | IJR Wt. | IWR Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMN | Eastman Chemical Company | 0.57% | 0.07% | 0.07% |
| ESI | Element Solutions Inc | 0.51% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| LKQ | LKQ Corporation | 0.49% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| MTCH | Match Group Inc | 0.47% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| CE | Celanese Corporation | 0.47% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| AWI | Armstrong World Industries, Inc. | 0.46% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| MOH | Molina Healthcare, Inc. | 0.45% | 0.05% | 0.05% |
| 00912X302 | Air Lease Corporation | 0.45% | 0.05% | 0.05% |
| QRVO | Qorvo Inc | 0.43% | 0.05% | 0.05% |
| 81211K100 | Sealed Air Corp. | 0.40% | 0.05% | 0.05% |
Both funds come from IShares. IJR is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF, while IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are EMN, ESI, and LKQ, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IJR and IWR can make sense if you want exposure to different sleeves of the market. The overlap is small enough that both funds may still improve diversification.
Go deeper
Portwise gives you full portfolio diagnostics — concentration risk, hidden risk scoring, drawdown analysis, and risk evolution tracking. Free to start.
Stay informed
Portfolio overlap alerts, new comparison data, and investing insights from the CG Corp team. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
A straightforward approach used by portfolio analysts.
For every stock that appears in both ETFs, we take the smaller of the two weights. Adding up all those minimums gives the total overlap percentage. A score of 100% means the two ETFs hold the exact same stocks in the same proportions.
Want the full explanation? Read the methodology page.