Both funds come from IShares. IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF, while USMV is an equity ETF. IWF and USMV show meaningful overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 21.27%. They share 90 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by NVDA, MSFT, and MA.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
Both funds come from IShares. IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF, while USMV is an equity ETF. IWF and USMV show meaningful overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 21.27%. They share 90 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by NVDA, MSFT, and MA.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
Both funds come from IShares. IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF, while USMV is an equity ETF. IWF and USMV overlap enough to matter, but they still bring different exposures to a portfolio. The overlap is concentrated in holdings such as NVDA, MSFT, and MA, which explains why the score lands at 21.27%.
Both funds come from IShares. IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF, while USMV is an equity ETF. Neither fund clearly dominates on breadth, so the practical difference is more about weighting, index construction, and cost. USMV has the lower expense ratio, while IWF 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 20.4% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
Because IWF and USMV are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. USMV has the lower expense ratio, while IWF charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 20.4% 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 IWF and USMV.
| Holding | Name | IWF Wt. | USMV Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | NVIDIA CORPORATION | 12.92% | 1.63% | 1.63% |
| MSFT | MICROSOFT CORPORATION | 8.82% | 1.56% | 1.56% |
| MA | MASTERCARD INCORPORATED | 1.45% | 1.15% | 1.15% |
| V | VISA INC. | 1.84% | 0.94% | 0.94% |
| AAPL | APPLE INC. | 11.64% | 0.82% | 0.82% |
| LLY | ELI LILLY AND COMPANY | 2.66% | 0.66% | 0.66% |
| ABBV | ABBVIE INC. | 1.39% | 0.63% | 0.63% |
| APH | AMPHENOL CORPORATION | 0.56% | 1.50% | 0.56% |
| AMD | ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. | 0.69% | 0.53% | 0.53% |
| KO | THE COCA-COLA COMPANY | 0.52% | 1.19% | 0.52% |
Both funds come from IShares. IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF, while USMV is an equity ETF. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are NVDA, MSFT, and MA, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IWF and USMV 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.