Both funds come from IShares. IWM is an equity ETF, while SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF. IWM and SCZ show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 3.86%. They share 2 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by 066922519 and 066922477.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
Both funds come from IShares. IWM is an equity ETF, while SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF. IWM and SCZ show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 3.86%. They share 2 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by 066922519 and 066922477.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
Both funds come from IShares. IWM is an equity ETF, while SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF. IWM and SCZ 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 066922519 and 066922477.
Both funds come from IShares. IWM is an equity ETF, while SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF. Neither fund clearly dominates on breadth, so the practical difference is more about weighting, index construction, and cost. IWM has the lower expense ratio, while SCZ 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 99.88% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
Because IWM and SCZ are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. IWM has the lower expense ratio, while SCZ charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 99.88% 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 IWM and SCZ.
| Holding | Name | IWM Wt. | SCZ Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 066922519 | BlackRock Funds III | 14.24% | 3.82% | 3.82% |
| 066922477 | BlackRock Funds III | 0.19% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
Both funds come from IShares. IWM is an equity ETF, while SCZ is a small-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 066922519 and 066922477, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IWM and SCZ 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.