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 XOVR: how they differ

IGM and XOVR hold 19% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and XOVR hold 19% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMXOVR
NVIDIA Corp.7.97%9.48%
Alphabet, Inc.4.45%6.53%
Meta Platforms, Inc.4.17%4.47%
Arista Networks, Inc.0.77%2.31%
AppLovin Corp.0.60%3.95%
Palantir Technologies, Inc.1.17%0.56%
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.0.30%1.77%
Astera Labs, Inc.0.28%7.75%
MongoDB, Inc.0.12%2.29%
Reddit, Inc.0.10%2.78%
Pegasystems, Inc.0.01%1.56%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in XOVR
Apple, Inc. 7.92%Natera Inc 3.70%
Broadcom, Inc. 7.61%Robinhood Markets Inc 3.56%
Microsoft Corp. 7.50%Veeva Systems Inc 3.17%
Micron Technology, Inc. 5.47%Affirm Holdings Inc 2.64%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 4.13%Axon Enterprise Inc 2.60%
Alphabet, Inc. 3.55%Rocket Lab Corp 2.50%
Intel Corp. 2.88%Roku Inc 2.16%
Applied Materials, Inc. 2.50%Tempus Ai Inc 2.06%

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 and XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesERShares
What it isExpanded Tech SectorPrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+32.7%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%43.4%
Holdings29532

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.

XOVR in plain words

XOVR is an index equity fund tracking the Private-Public Crossover. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned 0.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 32 positions, with the top ten at 63.1%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Oct 27, 2025 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or XOVR?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so IGM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 19% 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 XOVR, 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 XOVR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IGM-XOVR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources