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 SCHX: how they differ

IGM and SCHX hold 46% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and SCHX hold 46% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and SCHX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMSCHX
NVIDIA Corp.7.97%7.51%
Apple, Inc.7.92%6.71%
Microsoft Corp.7.50%4.89%
Alphabet, Inc.4.45%3.24%
Broadcom, Inc.7.61%3.10%
Alphabet, Inc.3.55%2.58%
Meta Platforms, Inc.4.17%2.02%
Micron Technology, Inc.5.47%1.60%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.4.13%1.23%
Intel Corp.2.88%0.79%
Cisco Systems, Inc.2.02%0.70%
Lam Research Corp.2.37%0.58%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in SCHX
Sandisk Corp. 1.47%Amazon.com Inc 3.87%
Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.94%Tesla Inc 1.79%
Shopify, Inc. 0.61%Eli Lilly & Co 1.28%
Accenture plc 0.33%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 1.27%
Lumentum Holdings, Inc. 0.29%JPMorgan Chase & Co 1.18%
Flex Ltd. 0.26%Exxon Mobil Corp 0.89%
TE Connectivity plc 0.26%Visa Inc 0.80%
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd. 0.19%Johnson & Johnson 0.80%

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 SCHX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
SCHX
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesSchwab
What it isExpanded Tech SectorU.S. Large-Cap
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+16.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts−0.7 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%94.9%
Holdings295748

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.

SCHX in plain words

SCHX is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 748 positions, with the top ten at 37.3%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or SCHX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and SCHX returned +16.8%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or SCHX?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and SCHX charges 0.03%, so SCHX is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and SCHX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 95% of SCHX by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 46% 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 SCHX, 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 SCHX, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-SCHX Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources