Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

CGGR vs IGM: how they differ

CGGR and IGM hold 39% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

Capital Group Growth ETF and iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGGR and IGM hold 39% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGGR and IGM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGGRIGM
Broadcom Inc5.40%7.61%
NVIDIA Corp5.16%7.97%
Micron Technology Inc4.86%5.47%
Microsoft Corp4.38%7.50%
Meta Platforms Inc7.09%4.17%
Alphabet Inc3.36%3.55%
Alphabet Inc3.06%4.45%
Apple Inc1.79%7.92%
Netflix Inc1.85%1.31%
Intel Corp1.19%2.88%
KLA Corp1.17%1.72%
Amphenol Corp0.85%0.95%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGGROnly in IGM
Tesla Inc 5.85%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.13%
Amazon.com Inc 2.69%Applied Materials, Inc. 2.50%
Visa Inc 2.34%Lam Research Corp. 2.37%
TransDigm Group Inc 2.02%Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.02%
Capital Group Central Cash Fund 1.98%Sandisk Corp. 1.47%
Eli Lilly & Co 1.81%Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 1.21%
Intuitive Surgical Inc 1.68%Texas Instruments, Inc. 1.18%
SK hynix Inc 1.62%Palantir Technologies, Inc. 1.17%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

CGGR and IGM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR
Capital Group Growth ETF
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitaliShares
What it isGrowthExpanded Tech Sector
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+32.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts+15.2 pts
Expense ratio0.39%0.37%
Already in the S&P 50080.6%92.0%
Holdings89295

CGGR in plain words

CGGR is an index equity fund tracking the Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.39% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 81% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 89 positions, with the top ten at 44.2%.

IGM in plain words

IGM is an index equity fund tracking the Expanded Tech Sector. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +32.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.37% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 295 positions, with the top ten at 55.7%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or IGM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +7.2% and IGM returned +32.7%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGGR or IGM?
CGGR charges 0.39% a year and IGM charges 0.37%, so IGM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGGR and IGM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 81% of CGGR and 92% of IGM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 39% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

CGGR against IGM, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGGR against IGM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGGR-IGM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources