IVW is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. IVW and SCHV show meaningful overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 23.08%. They share 68 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by BRK.B, JPM, and MU.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
IVW is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. IVW and SCHV show meaningful overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 23.08%. They share 68 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by BRK.B, JPM, and MU.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
IVW is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. IVW and SCHV overlap enough to matter, but they still bring different exposures to a portfolio. The overlap is concentrated in holdings such as BRK.B, JPM, and MU, which explains why the score lands at 23.08%.
IVW is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. Neither fund clearly dominates on breadth, so the practical difference is more about weighting, index construction, and cost. SCHV has the lower expense ratio, while IVW 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 25.97% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
Because IVW and SCHV are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. SCHV has the lower expense ratio, while IVW charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 25.97% 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 IVW and SCHV.
| Holding | Name | IVW Wt. | SCHV Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRK.B | Berkshire Hathaway Inc. | 3.03% | 2.82% | 2.82% |
| JPM | JPMorgan Chase & Co. | 1.86% | 2.62% | 1.86% |
| MU | Micron Technology Inc. | 1.31% | 3.54% | 1.31% |
| JNJ | Johnson & Johnson | 1.20% | 1.76% | 1.20% |
| CAT | Caterpillar Inc | 1.14% | 1.32% | 1.14% |
| AMAT | Applied Materials Inc. | 0.94% | 1.16% | 0.94% |
| LRCX | Lam Research Corporation | 0.92% | 1.29% | 0.92% |
| RTX | RTX Corp. | 0.89% | 0.78% | 0.78% |
| ABBV | AbbVie Inc. | 0.61% | 1.25% | 0.61% |
| GS | Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. | 0.57% | 1.00% | 0.57% |
IVW is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are BRK.B, JPM, and MU, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IVW and SCHV can still be reasonable, but you should expect some duplication. The decision comes down to whether the non-overlapping parts of each ETF are important enough for your strategy.
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.