Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IYW vs MTUM: how they differ
IYW and MTUM hold 37% of their weight in the same names, and IYW returned more over the year.
iShares U.S. Technology ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IYW and MTUM hold 37% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IYW | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORPORATION | 16.25% | 4.65% |
| BROADCOM INC. | 3.78% | 5.41% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. | 3.50% | 4.04% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. | 2.98% | 5.57% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 7.84% | 2.95% |
| INTEL CORPORATION | 2.56% | 3.84% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 6.34% | 2.39% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION | 1.99% | 3.62% |
| APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. | 1.92% | 2.36% |
| PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC. | 1.86% | 1.52% |
| KLA CORPORATION | 1.41% | 1.61% |
| INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORAT | 1.32% | 1.20% |
| Only in IYW | Only in MTUM |
|---|---|
| APPLE INC. 13.65% | JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.76% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3.99% | EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44% |
| META PLATFORMS, INC. 2.81% | CATERPILLAR INC. 3.21% |
| ORACLE CORPORATION 1.67% | JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.87% |
| TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED 1.57% | WALMART INC. 2.76% |
| QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 1.18% | GE VERNOVA INC. 2.54% |
| SALESFORCE, INC. 0.99% | GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1.90% |
| SANDISK CORPORATION 0.96% | THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. 1.69% |
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.
| IYW iShares U.S. Technology ETF | MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | iShares |
| What it is | U.S. Technology | MSCI USA Momentum Factor |
| Total return, 1 year | +34.9% | +21.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +17.4 pts | +4.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 95.5% | 98.2% |
| Holdings | 139 | 125 |
IYW in plain words
IYW is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +34.9% 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 Apr 30, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 139 positions, with the top ten at 63.7%.
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IYW or MTUM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IYW returned +34.9% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so IYW returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IYW or MTUM?
- IYW charges 0.37% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IYW and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 96% of IYW and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 37% 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, IYW against MTUM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IYW-MTUM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources