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 MGK: how they differ

IGM and MGK hold 62% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and Vanguard Mega Cap Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and MGK hold 62% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and MGK both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMMGK
NVIDIA Corp.7.97%13.29%
Apple, Inc.7.92%12.19%
Microsoft Corp.7.50%7.52%
Alphabet, Inc.4.45%5.93%
Broadcom, Inc.7.61%4.28%
Meta Platforms, Inc.4.17%4.08%
Alphabet, Inc.3.55%4.67%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.4.13%3.20%
Lam Research Corp.2.37%1.93%
KLA Corp.1.72%1.48%
Sandisk Corp.1.47%1.28%
Applied Materials, Inc.2.50%1.13%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in MGK
Micron Technology, Inc. 5.47%Amazon.com Inc 4.47%
Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.02%Tesla Inc 3.93%
Texas Instruments, Inc. 1.18%Eli Lilly & Co 3.41%
International Business Machines Corp. 1.15%Visa Inc 1.82%
Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.94%Mastercard Inc 1.47%
QUALCOMM, Inc. 0.85%GE Vernova Inc 1.21%
Analog Devices, Inc. 0.85%Boeing Co/The 0.72%
Shopify, Inc. 0.61%Welltower 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 MGK on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
MGK
Vanguard Mega Cap Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isExpanded Tech SectorMega Cap Growth
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+14.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts−2.6 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%99.2%
Holdings29556

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.

MGK in plain words

MGK is an index equity fund tracking the Mega Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.9% 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 Jun 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 56 positions, with the top ten at 63.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or MGK?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and MGK returned +14.9%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or MGK?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and MGK charges 0.07%, so MGK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and MGK overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 99% of MGK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 62% 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 MGK, 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 MGK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-MGK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources