Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IGM vs USMV: how they differ
IGM and USMV hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IGM and USMV hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IGM | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | 2.02% | 1.81% |
| NVIDIA Corp. | 7.97% | 1.64% |
| Microsoft Corp. | 7.50% | 1.56% |
| International Business Machines Corp. | 1.15% | 1.11% |
| Amphenol Corp. | 0.95% | 1.51% |
| Apple, Inc. | 7.92% | 0.82% |
| Texas Instruments, Inc. | 1.18% | 0.78% |
| Corning, Inc. | 0.87% | 0.68% |
| Salesforce, Inc. | 0.56% | 0.88% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | 4.13% | 0.53% |
| Palo Alto Networks, Inc. | 1.21% | 0.53% |
| Arista Networks, Inc. | 0.77% | 0.52% |
| Only in IGM | Only in USMV |
|---|---|
| Alphabet, Inc. 4.45% | EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60% |
| Intel Corp. 2.88% | DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55% |
| Lam Research Corp. 2.37% | THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53% |
| KLA Corp. 1.72% | Chubb Limited 1.50% |
| Sandisk Corp. 1.47% | VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1.49% |
| Western Digital Corp. 0.96% | WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 1.48% |
| Seagate Technology Holdings plc 0.94% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.44% |
| Shopify, Inc. 0.61% | BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1.42% |
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 Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.
| IGM iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF | USMV iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | Expanded Tech Sector | MSCI USA Min Vol Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +32.7% | +6.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +15.2 pts | −10.9 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 92.0% | 94.8% |
| Holdings | 295 | 170 |
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.
USMV in plain words
USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IGM or USMV?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and USMV returned +6.6%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IGM or USMV?
- IGM charges 0.37% a year and USMV charges 0.15%, so USMV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IGM and USMV overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 95% of USMV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 20% 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 USMV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-USMV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources