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

MTUM vs XLG: how they differ

MTUM and XLG hold 28% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, MTUM and XLG hold 28% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions MTUM and XLG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingMTUMXLG
BROADCOM INC.5.41%4.85%
NVIDIA CORPORATION4.65%13.10%
ALPHABET INC.2.95%6.05%
ALPHABET INC.2.39%4.82%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.2.87%2.28%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION3.44%1.74%
WALMART INC.2.76%1.56%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.4.04%1.56%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON3.76%1.50%
CATERPILLAR INC.3.21%1.12%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.1.52%0.86%
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY1.90%0.82%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in MTUMOnly in XLG
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 5.57%Apple Inc. 10.76%
INTEL CORPORATION 3.84%Microsoft Corp. 8.18%
LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.62%Amazon.com, Inc. 6.99%
GE VERNOVA INC. 2.54%Meta Platforms, Inc. 3.61%
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 2.36%Tesla, Inc. 2.90%
KLA CORPORATION 1.61%Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 2.35%
AMPHENOL CORPORATION 1.55%Eli Lilly and Co. 2.00%
WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION 1.54%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.

MTUM and XLG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesInvesco
What it isMSCI USA Momentum FactorS&P 500 top 50
Total return, 1 year+21.8%+12.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.3 pts−5.3 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.20%
Already in the S&P 50098.2%100.0%
Holdings12551

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.

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, MTUM or XLG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MTUM returned +21.8% and XLG returned +12.2%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, MTUM or XLG?
MTUM charges 0.15% a year and XLG charges 0.20%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do MTUM and XLG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 98% of MTUM and 100% of XLG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 28% 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.

MTUM 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, MTUM against XLG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/MTUM-XLG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources