IWF vs VEA Overlap
IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while VEA is an equity ETF from Vanguard. IWF and VEA show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 0.08%. They share 4 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by QSR.TO, BAM.TO, and RBA.TO.
Served from cache.
Quick Answer
IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while VEA is an equity ETF from Vanguard. IWF and VEA show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 0.08%. They share 4 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by QSR.TO, BAM.TO, and RBA.TO.
- 0.08% weighted overlap across 4 shared holdings.
- The top three shared holdings explain 96.25% of the measured overlap.
- IWF and VEA are closer in breadth than a broad-vs-niche ETF pair.
- The overlap is mostly explained by the top shared positions rather than sector labels alone.
- Holding both can still add materially different exposure.
Data Freshness
- IWF holdings
- Mar 12, 2026
- VEA holdings
- Mar 12, 2026
- Overlap computed
- Mar 13, 2026
- Data source
- Financial Modeling Prep
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
About These ETFs
What Stands Out In This Comparison
What This Means
IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while VEA is an equity ETF from Vanguard. IWF and VEA 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 QSR.TO, BAM.TO, and RBA.TO.
How They Differ
IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while VEA is an equity ETF from Vanguard. Neither fund clearly dominates on breadth, so the practical difference is more about weighting, index construction, and cost. VEA has the lower expense ratio, while IWF charges more for its exposure.
What Drives The Overlap
The overlap is driven by a relatively small set of large shared positions. The top three shared holdings account for 96.25% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
When One May Fit Better
Because IWF and VEA are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. VEA has the lower expense ratio, while IWF charges more for its exposure.
Overlap Driver Snapshot
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 96.25% 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.
Top Shared Holdings
These are the holdings contributing the most to the overlap score between IWF and VEA.
| Holding | Name | IWF Wt. | VEA Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QSR.TO | RESTAURANTS BRANDS INTERNATIONAL I | 0.05% | 0.07% | 0.05% |
| BAM.TO | BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT VOTING | 0.02% | 0.06% | 0.02% |
| RBA.TO | RB GLOBAL INC | 0.00% | 0.07% | 0.00% |
| COR | CENCORA INC | 0.22% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Why These ETFs Overlap
IWF is a U.S. growth equity ETF from IShares, while VEA is an equity ETF from Vanguard. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are QSR.TO, BAM.TO, and RBA.TO, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IWF and VEA 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.
Related Comparisons
Frequently Asked Questions About IWF and VEA
What is the overlap between IWF and VEA?+
How many holdings do IWF and VEA share?+
Is the IWF and VEA overlap high?+
Why do IWF and VEA overlap?+
Which ETF is broader, IWF or VEA?+
How Overlap Is Calculated
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.