SCZ vs VB Overlap
SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while VB is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from Vanguard. SCZ and VB show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 0%. They share 0 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by very few shared positions.
Served from cache.
Quick Answer
SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while VB is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from Vanguard. SCZ and VB show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 0%. They share 0 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by very few shared positions.
- 0% weighted overlap across 0 shared holdings.
- The top three shared holdings explain 0% of the measured overlap.
- SCZ and VB 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
- SCZ holdings
- Mar 12, 2026
- VB holdings
- Mar 12, 2026
- Overlap computed
- Mar 15, 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
SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while VB is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from Vanguard. SCZ and VB 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 very few shared positions.
How They Differ
SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while VB is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from Vanguard. Neither fund clearly dominates on breadth, so the practical difference is more about weighting, index construction, and cost. VB has the lower expense ratio, while SCZ 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 0% 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 SCZ and VB are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. VB has the lower expense ratio, while SCZ charges more for its exposure.
Overlap Driver Snapshot
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 0% 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 SCZ and VB.
Why These ETFs Overlap
SCZ is a small-cap U.S. equity ETF from IShares, while VB is a small-cap U.S. 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 very few shared positions, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both SCZ and VB 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 SCZ and VB
What is the overlap between SCZ and VB?+
How many holdings do SCZ and VB share?+
Is the SCZ and VB overlap high?+
Why do SCZ and VB overlap?+
Which ETF is broader, SCZ or VB?+
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.