Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IGM vs RDVY: how they differ
IGM and RDVY hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IGM and RDVY hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IGM | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 2.50% | 4.69% |
| Lam Research Corp. | 2.37% | 4.42% |
| Alphabet, Inc. | 4.45% | 2.12% |
| NVIDIA Corp. | 7.97% | 1.91% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. | 5.47% | 1.83% |
| KLA Corp. | 1.72% | 4.14% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. | 4.17% | 1.50% |
| Microsoft Corp. | 7.50% | 1.45% |
| Apple, Inc. | 7.92% | 1.44% |
| Western Digital Corp. | 0.96% | 0.59% |
| Salesforce, Inc. | 0.56% | 1.30% |
| Amphenol Corp. | 0.95% | 0.54% |
| Only in IGM | Only in RDVY |
|---|---|
| Broadcom, Inc. 7.61% | GE VERNOVA INC 2.80% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.13% | BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15% |
| Alphabet, Inc. 3.55% | GE AEROSPACE 2.13% |
| Intel Corp. 2.88% | WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.02% | ROSS STORES INC 2.01% |
| Sandisk Corp. 1.47% | ALLSTATE CORP (THE) 2.01% |
| Netflix, Inc. 1.31% | TRAVELERS COMPANIES INC (THE) 2.00% |
| Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 1.21% | SNAP-ON INC 2.00% |
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 iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF | RDVY First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | First Trust |
| What it is | Expanded Tech Sector | First Rising Dividend Achievers |
| Total return, 1 year | +32.7% | +22.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +15.2 pts | +4.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.47% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 92.0% | 94.4% |
| Holdings | 295 | 71 |
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.
RDVY in plain words
RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IGM or RDVY?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IGM or RDVY?
- IGM charges 0.37% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so IGM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IGM and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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 RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources