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 ONEQ: how they differ

IGM and ONEQ hold 59% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and ONEQ hold 59% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMONEQ
NVIDIA Corp.7.97%11.24%
Apple, Inc.7.92%10.04%
Microsoft Corp.7.50%7.32%
Broadcom, Inc.7.61%4.64%
Alphabet, Inc.4.45%4.85%
Alphabet, Inc.3.55%4.48%
Meta Platforms, Inc.4.17%3.03%
Micron Technology, Inc.5.47%2.38%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.4.13%1.84%
Intel Corp.2.88%1.25%
Cisco Systems, Inc.2.02%1.04%
Lam Research Corp.2.37%0.87%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in ONEQ
International Business Machines Corp. 1.15%AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%
Oracle Corp. 1.08%TESLA INC 3.58%
Amphenol Corp. 0.95%WALMART INC 2.02%
Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.94%COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP 0.93%
Corning, Inc. 0.87%LINDE PLC 0.50%
Arista Networks, Inc. 0.77%T-MOBILE US INC 0.45%
Salesforce, Inc. 0.56%PEPSICO INC 0.43%
Dell Technologies, Inc. 0.55%SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 0.42%

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 and May 31, 2026.

IGM and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isExpanded Tech SectorNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.21%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%87.4%
Holdings2951022

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.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or ONEQ?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 59% 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 ONEQ, 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 ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources