IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. IWR and SCHV show meaningful overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 29.08%. They share 411 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by WDC, GLW, and HWM.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. IWR and SCHV show meaningful overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 29.08%. They share 411 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by WDC, GLW, and HWM.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. IWR and SCHV overlap enough to matter, but they still bring different exposures to a portfolio. The overlap is concentrated in holdings such as WDC, GLW, and HWM, which explains why the score lands at 29.08%.
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while SCHV is a U.S. value equity ETF from Schwab. SCHV is the broader fund, while IWR is the more targeted sleeve. SCHV has the lower expense ratio, while IWR 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 4.74% 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, SCHV is usually the wider choice. If you want the more focused tilt, IWR is the narrower expression. SCHV has the lower expense ratio, while IWR charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 4.74% 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 IWR and SCHV.
| Holding | Name | IWR Wt. | SCHV Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WDC | Western Digital Corp. | 0.73% | 0.58% | 0.58% |
| GLW | Corning, Inc. | 0.84% | 0.46% | 0.46% |
| HWM | Howmet Aerospace, Inc. | 0.73% | 0.34% | 0.34% |
| BNY | Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The) | 0.65% | 0.31% | 0.31% |
| CMI | Cummins, Inc. | 0.59% | 0.29% | 0.29% |
| CIEN | Ciena Corp. | 0.43% | 0.27% | 0.27% |
| ROST | Ross Stores, Inc. | 0.55% | 0.24% | 0.24% |
| VLO | Valero Energy Corp. | 0.60% | 0.24% | 0.24% |
| MPC | Marathon Petroleum Corp. | 0.58% | 0.24% | 0.24% |
| LR0008862868 | Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. | 0.55% | 0.23% | 0.23% |
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. 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 WDC, GLW, and HWM, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IWR 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.