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

FNDX vs IGM: how they differ

FNDX and IGM hold 26% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF and iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FNDX and IGM hold 26% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FNDX and IGM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFNDXIGM
Apple Inc4.64%7.92%
Intel Corp2.57%2.88%
Alphabet Inc2.38%4.45%
Microsoft Corp2.33%7.50%
Alphabet Inc1.90%3.55%
Micron Technology Inc1.60%5.47%
Meta Platforms Inc1.24%4.17%
Cisco Systems Inc0.90%2.02%
Broadcom Inc0.65%7.61%
NVIDIA Corp0.55%7.97%
QUALCOMM Inc0.53%0.85%
Applied Materials Inc0.47%2.50%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FNDXOnly in IGM
Exxon Mobil Corp 2.29%Palantir Technologies, Inc. 1.17%
Amazon.com Inc 1.86%Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.94%
Chevron Corp 1.49%Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. 0.85%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.41%Shopify, Inc. 0.61%
JPMorgan Chase & Co 1.38%AppLovin Corp. 0.60%
UnitedHealth Group Inc 1.37%Snowflake, Inc. 0.38%
Walmart Inc 1.01%Datadog, Inc. 0.38%
Verizon Communications Inc 0.99%Cloudflare, Inc. 0.34%

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.

FNDX and IGM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FNDX
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabiShares
What it isFundamental U.S. Large CompanyExpanded Tech Sector
Total return, 1 year+26.1%+32.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+8.6 pts+15.2 pts
Expense ratio0.25%0.37%
Already in the S&P 50091.2%92.0%
Holdings733295

FNDX in plain words

FNDX is an index equity fund tracking the Fundamental U.S. Large Company. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +26.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 733 positions, with the top ten at 22.5%.

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, FNDX or IGM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FNDX returned +26.1% and IGM returned +32.7%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FNDX or IGM?
FNDX charges 0.25% a year and IGM charges 0.37%, so FNDX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FNDX and IGM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of FNDX and 92% of IGM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 26% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources