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 URTH: how they differ

IGM and URTH hold 34% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares MSCI World ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and URTH hold 34% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and URTH both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMURTH
NVIDIA Corp.7.97%5.64%
Apple, Inc.7.92%5.04%
Microsoft Corp.7.50%3.50%
Alphabet, Inc.4.45%2.43%
Broadcom, Inc.7.61%2.21%
Alphabet, Inc.3.55%2.01%
Meta Platforms, Inc.4.17%1.51%
Micron Technology, Inc.5.47%1.20%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.4.13%0.92%
Intel Corp.2.88%0.57%
Cisco Systems, Inc.2.02%0.52%
Lam Research Corp.2.37%0.44%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in URTH
Sandisk Corp. 1.47%AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.86%
Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.94%TESLA, INC. 1.35%
Accenture plc 0.33%ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 0.97%
NXP Semiconductors NV 0.31%JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 0.90%
Flex Ltd. 0.26%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 0.72%
TE Connectivity plc 0.26%ASML Holding N.V. 0.69%
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd. 0.19%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 0.67%
MKS, Inc. 0.13%VISA INC. 0.60%

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 URTH on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
URTH
iShares MSCI World ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isExpanded Tech SectorMSCI World
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+17.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts−0.1 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.24%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%70.3%
Holdings2951322

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.

URTH in plain words

URTH is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI World. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.24% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 70% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1322 positions, with the top ten at 27.8%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or URTH?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and URTH returned +17.4%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or URTH?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and URTH charges 0.24%, so URTH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and URTH overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 70% of URTH by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 34% 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 URTH, 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 URTH, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-URTH Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources