IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while XLK is a technology-focused equity ETF from SPDR. IWR and XLK show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 8.61%. They share 35 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by GLW, WDC, and SNDK.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while XLK is a technology-focused equity ETF from SPDR. IWR and XLK show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 8.61%. They share 35 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by GLW, WDC, and SNDK.
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 XLK is a technology-focused equity ETF from SPDR. IWR and XLK 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 GLW, WDC, and SNDK.
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while XLK is a technology-focused equity ETF from SPDR. IWR is the broader fund, while XLK is the more targeted sleeve. XLK 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 26.61% 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, XLK is the narrower expression. XLK has the lower expense ratio, while IWR charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 26.61% 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 XLK.
| Holding | Name | IWR Wt. | XLK Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLW | Corning, Inc. | 0.84% | 0.95% | 0.84% |
| WDC | Western Digital Corp. | 0.73% | 0.82% | 0.73% |
| SNDK | Sandisk Corp. | 0.72% | 0.84% | 0.72% |
| CIEN | Ciena Corp. | 0.43% | 0.49% | 0.43% |
| MPWR | Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. | 0.40% | 0.47% | 0.40% |
| LITE | Lumentum Holdings, Inc. | 0.39% | 0.45% | 0.39% |
| KEYS | Keysight Technologies, Inc. | 0.39% | 0.43% | 0.39% |
| TER | Teradyne, Inc. | 0.37% | 0.41% | 0.37% |
| COHR | Coherent Corp. | 0.33% | 0.40% | 0.33% |
| DDOG | Datadog, Inc. | 0.29% | 0.35% | 0.29% |
IWR is a mid-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while XLK is a technology-focused equity ETF from SPDR. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are GLW, WDC, and SNDK, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IWR and XLK 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.