Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IGM vs VBK: how they differ
IGM and VBK hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IGM and VBK hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IGM | VBK |
|---|---|---|
| Astera Labs, Inc. | 0.28% | 1.05% |
| Twilio, Inc. | 0.14% | 0.88% |
| MKS, Inc. | 0.13% | 0.42% |
| Entegris, Inc. | 0.12% | 0.77% |
| First Solar, Inc. | 0.11% | 0.34% |
| MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc | 0.11% | 0.74% |
| Everpure, Inc. | 0.11% | 0.70% |
| Okta, Inc. | 0.10% | 0.65% |
| Lattice Semiconductor Corp. | 0.09% | 0.59% |
| IonQ, Inc. | 0.09% | 0.44% |
| TTM Technologies, Inc. | 0.09% | 0.55% |
| Onto Innovation, Inc. | 0.08% | 0.53% |
| Only in IGM | Only in VBK |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp. 7.97% | Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 1.27% |
| Apple, Inc. 7.92% | REVOLUTION Medicines Inc 1.07% |
| Broadcom, Inc. 7.61% | Natera Inc 1.04% |
| Microsoft Corp. 7.50% | Casey's General Stores Inc 0.83% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. 5.47% | Carpenter Technology Corp 0.82% |
| Alphabet, Inc. 4.45% | Curtiss-Wright Corp 0.79% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. 4.17% | FTAI Aviation Ltd 0.78% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.13% | nVent Electric PLC 0.77% |
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 | VBK Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | Expanded Tech Sector | Small-Cap Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +32.7% | +13.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +15.2 pts | −3.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.05% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 92.0% | 10.2% |
| Holdings | 295 | 545 |
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.
VBK in plain words
VBK is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 10% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 545 positions, with the top ten at 9.3%. It sat 7.0% below its high of Aug 17, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IGM or VBK?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and VBK returned +13.8%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IGM or VBK?
- IGM charges 0.37% a year and VBK charges 0.05%, so VBK is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IGM and VBK overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 10% of VBK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 VBK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-VBK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources