Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IGM vs MTUM: how they differ
IGM and MTUM hold 43% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IGM and MTUM hold 43% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IGM | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| Micron Technology, Inc. | 5.47% | 5.57% |
| Broadcom, Inc. | 7.61% | 5.41% |
| NVIDIA Corp. | 7.97% | 4.65% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | 4.13% | 4.04% |
| Alphabet, Inc. | 4.45% | 2.95% |
| Intel Corp. | 2.88% | 3.84% |
| Alphabet, Inc. | 3.55% | 2.39% |
| Lam Research Corp. | 2.37% | 3.62% |
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 2.50% | 2.36% |
| KLA Corp. | 1.72% | 1.61% |
| Palantir Technologies, Inc. | 1.17% | 1.52% |
| International Business Machines Corp. | 1.15% | 1.20% |
| Only in IGM | Only in MTUM |
|---|---|
| Apple, Inc. 7.92% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.76% |
| Microsoft Corp. 7.50% | EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. 4.17% | CATERPILLAR INC. 3.21% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.02% | JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.87% |
| Sandisk Corp. 1.47% | WALMART INC. 2.76% |
| Netflix, Inc. 1.31% | GE VERNOVA INC. 2.54% |
| Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 1.21% | GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1.90% |
| Texas Instruments, Inc. 1.18% | THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. 1.69% |
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 iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF | MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Expanded Tech Sector | MSCI USA Momentum Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +32.7% | +21.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +15.2 pts | +4.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 92.0% | 98.2% |
| Holdings | 295 | 125 |
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.
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IGM or MTUM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IGM or MTUM?
- IGM charges 0.37% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IGM and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 43% 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 MTUM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-MTUM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources