Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IGM vs IJS: how they differ
IGM and IJS hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IGM and IJS hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IGM | IJS |
|---|---|---|
| MaxLinear, Inc. | 0.05% | 0.67% |
| Match Group, Inc. | 0.04% | 0.97% |
| Ralliant Corp. | 0.04% | 0.43% |
| Plexus Corp. | 0.04% | 0.49% |
| Qorvo, Inc. | 0.03% | 0.30% |
| Kulicke & Soffa Industries, Inc. | 0.03% | 0.77% |
| Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. | 0.03% | 0.73% |
| Enphase Energy, Inc. | 0.03% | 0.71% |
| Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. | 0.03% | 0.70% |
| Axcelis Technologies, Inc. | 0.03% | 0.23% |
| MARA Holdings, Inc. | 0.02% | 0.26% |
| ACI Worldwide, Inc. | 0.02% | 0.19% |
| Only in IGM | Only in IJS |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp. 7.97% | MOLINA HEALTHCARE INC 1.30% |
| Apple, Inc. 7.92% | EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY 0.84% |
| Broadcom, Inc. 7.61% | CARMAX INC 0.82% |
| Microsoft Corp. 7.50% | POOL CORP 0.75% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. 5.47% | LKQ CORP 0.73% |
| Alphabet, Inc. 4.45% | VICTORIA'S SECRET & COMPANY 0.72% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. 4.17% | CONAGRA BRANDS INC 0.69% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.13% | MOHAWK INDUSTRIES INC 0.68% |
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.
| IGM iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF | IJS iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Expanded Tech Sector | S&P Small-Cap 600 Value |
| Total return, 1 year | +32.7% | +22.1% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +15.2 pts | +4.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.18% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 92.0% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 295 | 461 |
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.
IJS in plain words
IJS is an index equity fund tracking the S&P Small-Cap 600 Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 461 positions, with the top ten at 8.3%. It sat 4.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IGM or IJS?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and IJS returned +22.1%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IGM or IJS?
- IGM charges 0.37% a year and IJS charges 0.18%, so IJS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IGM and IJS overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 0% of IJS 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IGM against IJS, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-IJS Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources