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

IBB vs URTH: how they differ

IBB and URTH hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IBB returned more over the year.

iShares Biotechnology ETF and iShares MSCI World ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IBB and URTH hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IBB and URTH both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIBBURTH
Amgen, Inc.7.84%0.20%
Gilead Sciences, Inc.6.85%0.18%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.8.09%0.13%
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.4.91%0.07%
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.3.12%0.04%
Biogen, Inc.2.47%0.03%
Natera, Inc.2.89%0.03%
Revolution Medicines, Inc.2.78%0.03%
Illumina, Inc.2.07%0.03%
United Therapeutics Corp.1.74%0.03%
Insmed, Inc.1.79%0.03%
Incyte Corp.1.75%0.02%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IBBOnly in URTH
Argenx SE 3.76%NVIDIA CORPORATION 5.64%
Moderna, Inc. 1.99%APPLE INC. 5.04%
BeOne Medicines Ltd. 1.77%MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3.50%
Roivant Sciences Ltd. 1.43%AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.86%
Ascendis Pharma A/S 1.29%ALPHABET INC. 2.43%
Genmab A/S 1.12%BROADCOM INC. 2.21%
Exelixis, Inc. 1.03%ALPHABET INC. 2.01%
Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1.00%META PLATFORMS, INC. 1.51%

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.

IBB and URTH on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IBB
iShares Biotechnology ETF
URTH
iShares MSCI World ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isBiotechnologyMSCI World
Total return, 1 year+41.5%+17.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+24.0 pts−0.1 pts
Expense ratio0.44%0.24%
Already in the S&P 50035.6%70.3%
Holdings2481322

IBB in plain words

IBB is an index equity fund tracking the Biotechnology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +41.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.44% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 36% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 248 positions, with the top ten at 44.8%. It sat 6.5% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

URTH in plain words

URTH is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI World. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.24% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 70% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1322 positions, with the top ten at 27.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IBB or URTH?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IBB returned +41.5% and URTH returned +17.4%, so IBB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IBB or URTH?
IBB charges 0.44% a year and URTH charges 0.24%, so URTH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IBB and URTH overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 36% of IBB and 70% of URTH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources