Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
DYNF vs ITOT: how they differ
DYNF and ITOT hold 56% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and ITOT hold 56% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | DYNF | ITOT |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 8.62% | 6.64% |
| Apple Inc | 7.75% | 5.82% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.35% | 3.80% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 4.42% | 3.20% |
| Alphabet Inc | 2.87% | 2.87% |
| Broadcom Inc | 3.25% | 2.45% |
| Alphabet Inc | 2.10% | 2.29% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 2.50% | 1.70% |
| Tesla Inc | 1.74% | 1.62% |
| Micron Technology Inc | 1.35% | 1.78% |
| Berkshire Hathaway Inc | 2.38% | 1.26% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | 3.59% | 1.20% |
| Only in DYNF | Only in ITOT |
|---|---|
| Eaton Corp PLC 0.75% | Mastercard, Inc. 0.57% |
| Trane Technologies PLC 0.72% | KLA Corp. 0.54% |
| Medtronic PLC 0.29% | Merck & Co., Inc. 0.43% |
| Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.24% | Coca-Cola Co. (The) 0.43% |
| Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 0.18% | Chevron Corp. 0.42% |
| CRH PLC 0.11% | Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 0.38% |
| Anglogold Ashanti Plc 0.05% | Marvell Technology, Inc. 0.36% |
| Millicom International Cellular SA 0.04% | Linde plc 0.33% |
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 Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.
| DYNF iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF | ITOT iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active | Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market |
| Total return, 1 year | +20.8% | +17.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +3.3 pts | −0.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.26% | 0.03% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 98.8% | 88.3% |
| Holdings | 187 | 2497 |
DYNF in plain words
DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.
ITOT in plain words
ITOT is an index equity fund tracking the Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 88% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2497 positions, with the top ten at 32.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or ITOT?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and ITOT returned +17.2%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, DYNF or ITOT?
- DYNF charges 0.26% a year and ITOT charges 0.03%, so ITOT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do DYNF and ITOT overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 88% of ITOT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 56% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, DYNF against ITOT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DYNF-ITOT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources