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 XLG: how they differ

IGM and XLG hold 48% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and XLG hold 48% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and XLG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMXLG
NVIDIA Corp.7.97%13.10%
Apple, Inc.7.92%10.76%
Microsoft Corp.7.50%8.18%
Broadcom, Inc.7.61%4.85%
Alphabet, Inc.4.45%6.05%
Meta Platforms, Inc.4.17%3.61%
Alphabet, Inc.3.55%4.82%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.4.13%1.56%
Netflix, Inc.1.31%1.07%
Cisco Systems, Inc.2.02%0.98%
Palantir Technologies, Inc.1.17%0.86%
Oracle Corp.1.08%0.74%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in XLG
Micron Technology, Inc. 5.47%Amazon.com, Inc. 6.99%
Intel Corp. 2.88%Tesla, Inc. 2.90%
Applied Materials, Inc. 2.50%Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 2.35%
Lam Research Corp. 2.37%JPMorgan Chase & Co. 2.28%
KLA Corp. 1.72%Eli Lilly and Co. 2.00%
Sandisk Corp. 1.47%Exxon Mobil Corp. 1.74%
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 1.21%Walmart Inc. 1.56%
Marvell Technology, Inc. 1.14%Visa Inc. 1.50%

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 and XLG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesInvesco
What it isExpanded Tech SectorS&P 500 top 50
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+12.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts−5.3 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.20%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%100.0%
Holdings29551

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.

XLG in plain words

XLG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 top 50. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 51 positions, with the top ten at 63.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or XLG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and XLG returned +12.2%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or XLG?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and XLG charges 0.20%, so XLG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and XLG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 100% of XLG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 48% 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 XLG, 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 XLG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-XLG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources