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 IXUS: how they differ

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

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions IGM and IXUS both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMIXUS
Shopify, Inc.0.61%0.35%
Celestica, Inc.0.18%0.11%
CGI, Inc.0.05%0.03%
Descartes Systems Group, Inc. (The)0.03%0.01%
Open Text Corp.0.02%0.01%
BlackBerry Ltd.0.03%0.01%
Lightspeed Commerce, Inc.0.01%0.01%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in IXUS
NVIDIA Corp. 7.97%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 4.04%
Apple, Inc. 7.92%ASML Holding N.V. 1.32%
Broadcom, Inc. 7.61%SK hynix Inc. 1.15%
Microsoft Corp. 7.50%Tencent Holdings Limited 0.91%
Micron Technology, Inc. 5.47%HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.75%
Alphabet, Inc. 4.45%ASTRAZENECA PLC 0.69%
Meta Platforms, Inc. 4.17%Alibaba Group Holding Limited 0.67%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.13%Novartis AG 0.66%

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 and Jun 30, 2026.

IGM and IXUS on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
IXUS
iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isExpanded Tech SectorCore MSCI Total International Stock
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+22.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts+4.7 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%0.0%
Holdings2954185

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.

IXUS in plain words

IXUS is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI Total International Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 4185 positions, with the top ten at 12.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or IXUS?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and IXUS returned +22.2%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or IXUS?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and IXUS charges 0.07%, so IXUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and IXUS overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 0% of IXUS 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources