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

URTH vs XOVR: how they differ

URTH and XOVR hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and URTH returned more over the year.

iShares MSCI World ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, URTH and XOVR hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions URTH and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingURTHXOVR
NVIDIA CORPORATION5.64%9.48%
ALPHABET INC.2.43%6.53%
META PLATFORMS, INC.1.51%4.47%
TESLA, INC.1.35%1.63%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.0.39%0.56%
ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.0.19%2.31%
APPLOVIN CORPORATION0.15%3.95%
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.0.08%1.77%
ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.0.08%3.56%
ROCKET LAB CORPORATION0.08%2.50%
DOORDASH, INC.0.07%2.04%
Astera Labs, Inc0.05%7.75%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in URTHOnly in XOVR
APPLE INC. 5.04%Roku Inc 2.16%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 3.50%Tempus Ai Inc 2.06%
AMAZON.COM, INC. 2.86%Exelixis Inc 1.89%
BROADCOM INC. 2.21%Virtu Financial Inc 1.86%
ALPHABET INC. 2.01%Medpace Holdings Inc 1.67%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1.20%Pegasystems Inc 1.56%
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY 0.97%Globus Medical Inc 1.35%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 0.92%Ubiquiti Inc 0.92%

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 and May 31, 2026.

URTH and XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
URTH
iShares MSCI World ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesERShares
What it isMSCI WorldPrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+17.4%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.1 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.24%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50070.3%43.4%
Holdings132232

URTH in plain words

URTH is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI World. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.24% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 70% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1322 positions, with the top ten at 27.8%.

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, URTH or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, URTH returned +17.4% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so URTH returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, URTH or XOVR?
URTH charges 0.24% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so URTH is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do URTH and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 70% of URTH and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources