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

DYNF vs XLG: how they differ

DYNF and XLG hold 61% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and XLG hold 61% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DYNF and XLG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDYNFXLG
NVIDIA Corp8.62%13.10%
Apple Inc7.75%10.76%
Microsoft Corp5.35%8.18%
Amazon.com Inc4.42%6.99%
Broadcom Inc3.25%4.85%
Alphabet Inc2.87%6.05%
Meta Platforms Inc2.50%3.61%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc2.38%2.35%
JPMorgan Chase & Co3.59%2.28%
Alphabet Inc2.10%4.82%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.93%1.74%
Tesla Inc1.74%2.90%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DYNFOnly in XLG
Lam Research Corp 2.71%Mastercard Inc. 1.11%
Duke Energy Corp 1.63%Chevron Corp. 0.98%
Parker-Hannifin Corp 1.50%Coca-Cola Co. (The) 0.82%
Hartford Insurance Group Inc/The 1.48%Merck & Co., Inc. 0.73%
Applied Materials Inc 1.41%Linde PLC 0.63%
Micron Technology Inc 1.35%PepsiCo, Inc. 0.58%
Travelers Cos Inc/The 1.35%Abbott Laboratories 0.43%
Citigroup Inc 1.27%Accenture PLC 0.30%

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.

DYNF and XLG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesInvesco
What it isU.S. Equity Factor Rotation ActiveS&P 500 top 50
Total return, 1 year+20.8%+12.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.3 pts−5.3 pts
Expense ratio0.26%0.20%
Already in the S&P 50098.8%100.0%
Holdings18751

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%.

XLG in plain words

XLG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 top 50. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 51 positions, with the top ten at 63.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or XLG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and XLG returned +12.2%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DYNF or XLG?
DYNF charges 0.26% a year and XLG charges 0.20%, so XLG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DYNF and XLG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 100% of XLG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 61% 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.

DYNF against XLG, 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, DYNF against XLG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DYNF-XLG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources