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 QQQM: how they differ

IGM and QQQM hold 66% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and QQQM hold 66% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and QQQM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMQQQM
NVIDIA Corp.7.97%8.16%
Apple, Inc.7.92%7.29%
Microsoft Corp.7.50%5.32%
Micron Technology, Inc.5.47%4.80%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.4.13%3.70%
Alphabet, Inc.4.45%3.52%
Broadcom, Inc.7.61%3.37%
Alphabet, Inc.3.55%3.26%
Meta Platforms, Inc.4.17%2.97%
Intel Corp.2.88%2.52%
Cisco Systems, Inc.2.02%2.09%
Lam Research Corp.2.37%1.75%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in QQQM
International Business Machines Corp. 1.15%Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62%
Oracle Corp. 1.08%Tesla, Inc. 3.46%
Amphenol Corp. 0.95%Walmart Inc. 2.48%
Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.94%Costco Wholesale Corp. 1.86%
Corning, Inc. 0.87%Linde PLC 1.01%
Arista Networks, Inc. 0.77%T-Mobile US, Inc. 0.91%
Salesforce, Inc. 0.56%PepsiCo, Inc. 0.87%
Dell Technologies, Inc. 0.55%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.84%

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 QQQM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesInvesco
What it isExpanded Tech SectorNasdaq-100
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+23.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts+5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%96.7%
Holdings295101

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.

QQQM in plain words

QQQM is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 101 positions, with the top ten at 47.5%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or QQQM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and QQQM returned +23.0%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or QQQM?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and QQQM charges 0.15%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and QQQM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 97% of QQQM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 66% 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 QQQM, 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 QQQM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-QQQM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources