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 MDY: how they differ

IGM and MDY hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and MDY hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and MDY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMMDY
Twilio, Inc.0.14%0.86%
MKS, Inc.0.13%0.83%
Entegris, Inc.0.12%0.76%
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc0.11%0.69%
Everpure, Inc.0.11%0.69%
Okta, Inc.0.10%0.63%
Lattice Semiconductor Corp.0.09%0.58%
TD SYNNEX Corp.0.09%0.55%
TTM Technologies, Inc.0.09%0.54%
Onto Innovation, Inc.0.08%0.52%
SiTime Corp.0.07%0.46%
Semtech Corp.0.07%0.42%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in MDY
NVIDIA Corp. 7.97%CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP 0.85%
Apple, Inc. 7.92%CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP 0.77%
Broadcom, Inc. 7.61%NVENT ELECTRIC PLC 0.76%
Microsoft Corp. 7.50%ATI INC 0.74%
Micron Technology, Inc. 5.47%ILLUMINA INC 0.73%
Alphabet, Inc. 4.45%TECHNIPFMC PLC 0.73%
Meta Platforms, Inc. 4.17%STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE INC 0.71%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.13%MASTEC INC 0.71%

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 MDY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
MDY
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesState Street
What it isExpanded Tech SectorS&P MidCap 400, book from IJH
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+13.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts−4.5 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.23%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%0.0%
Holdings295400

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.

MDY in plain words

MDY is an index equity fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.23% 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 400 positions, with the top ten at 7.7%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or MDY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and MDY returned +13.0%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or MDY?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and MDY charges 0.23%, so MDY is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and MDY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 0% of MDY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 MDY, 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 MDY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-MDY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources