IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while XLF is a financial sector ETF from SPDR. IWR and XLF show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 8.62%. They share 40 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by BNY, ALL, and HOOD.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while XLF is a financial sector ETF from SPDR. IWR and XLF show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 8.62%. They share 40 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by BNY, ALL, and HOOD.
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 XLF is a financial sector ETF from SPDR. IWR and XLF 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 BNY, ALL, and HOOD.
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while XLF is a financial sector ETF from SPDR. IWR is the broader fund, while XLF is the more targeted sleeve. XLF 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 17.31% 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, IWR is usually the wider choice. If you want the more focused tilt, XLF is the narrower expression. XLF has the lower expense ratio, while IWR charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 17.31% 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 XLF.
| Holding | Name | IWR Wt. | XLF Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNY | Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The) | 0.65% | 1.16% | 0.65% |
| ALL | Allstate Corp. (The) | 0.43% | 0.76% | 0.43% |
| HOOD | Robinhood Markets, Inc. | 0.42% | 0.78% | 0.42% |
| FITB | Fifth Third Bancorp | 0.33% | 0.59% | 0.33% |
| AMP | Ameriprise Financial, Inc. | 0.32% | 0.58% | 0.32% |
| COIN | Coinbase Global, Inc. | 0.31% | 0.55% | 0.31% |
| NDAQ | Nasdaq, Inc. | 0.30% | 0.54% | 0.30% |
| MSCI | MSCI, Inc. | 0.30% | 0.56% | 0.30% |
| HIG | Hartford Insurance Group, Inc. (The) | 0.30% | 0.53% | 0.30% |
| STT | State Street Corp. | 0.28% | 0.50% | 0.28% |
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while XLF is a financial sector ETF from SPDR. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are BNY, ALL, and HOOD, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IWR and XLF 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.