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

IGM vs IWD: how they differ

IGM and IWD hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and IWD hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and IWD both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMIWD
Apple, Inc.7.92%5.38%
Microsoft Corp.7.50%3.89%
Intel Corp.2.88%1.72%
Cisco Systems, Inc.2.02%1.30%
International Business Machines Corp.1.15%0.74%
Meta Platforms, Inc.4.17%0.63%
QUALCOMM, Inc.0.85%0.55%
Analog Devices, Inc.0.85%0.51%
Salesforce, Inc.0.56%0.35%
Dell Technologies, Inc.0.55%0.32%
Synopsys, Inc.0.37%0.23%
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.0.26%0.17%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in IWD
NVIDIA Corp. 7.97%AMAZON.COM, INC. 5.95%
Broadcom, Inc. 7.61%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.62%
Micron Technology, Inc. 5.47%JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.46%
Alphabet, Inc. 4.45%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.72%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.13%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%
Alphabet, Inc. 3.55%WALMART INC. 1.28%
Applied Materials, Inc. 2.50%ABBVIE INC. 1.15%
Lam Research Corp. 2.37%UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED 1.05%

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 and IWD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isExpanded Tech SectorRussell 1000 value
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+27.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts+9.9 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%90.2%
Holdings295870

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.

IWD in plain words

IWD is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 870 positions, with the top ten at 27.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or IWD?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and IWD returned +27.4%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or IWD?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and IWD charges 0.18%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and IWD overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 90% of IWD by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources