Both funds come from IShares. IVV is a U.S. large-cap core ETF, while IWP is a U.S. growth equity ETF. IVV and IWP show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 5.19%. They share 88 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by VRT, HWM, and PWR.
Served from cache.
Quick Answer
Both funds come from IShares. IVV is a U.S. large-cap core ETF, while IWP is a U.S. growth equity ETF. IVV and IWP show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 5.19%. They share 88 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by VRT, HWM, and PWR.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
Both funds come from IShares. IVV is a U.S. large-cap core ETF, while IWP is a U.S. growth equity ETF. IVV and IWP 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 VRT, HWM, and PWR.
Both funds come from IShares. IVV is a U.S. large-cap core ETF, while IWP is a U.S. growth equity ETF. IVV is the broader fund, while IWP is the more targeted sleeve. IVV has the lower expense ratio, while IWP 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 9.29% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
If you want the broader portfolio building block, IVV is usually the wider choice. If you want the more focused tilt, IWP is the narrower expression. IVV has the lower expense ratio, while IWP charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 9.29% 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 IVV and IWP.
| Holding | Name | IVV Wt. | IWP Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VRT | Vertiv Holdings Co. | 0.17% | 3.43% | 0.17% |
| HWM | Howmet Aerospace, Inc. | 0.16% | 3.32% | 0.16% |
| PWR | Quanta Services, Inc. | 0.15% | 2.25% | 0.15% |
| BNY | Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The) | 0.15% | 0.21% | 0.15% |
| 066922519 | BlackRock Funds III | 0.14% | 4.34% | 0.14% |
| PSX | Phillips 66 | 0.13% | 0.19% | 0.13% |
| ROST | Ross Stores, Inc. | 0.13% | 0.50% | 0.13% |
| HLT | Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. | 0.12% | 2.49% | 0.12% |
| LR0008862868 | Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. | 0.12% | 2.51% | 0.12% |
| COR | Cencora, Inc. | 0.11% | 2.07% | 0.11% |
Both funds come from IShares. IVV is a U.S. large-cap core ETF, while IWP is a U.S. growth equity ETF. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are VRT, HWM, and PWR, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IVV and IWP 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.