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

USMV vs XLG: how they differ

USMV and XLG hold 27% of their weight in the same names, and XLG returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, USMV and XLG hold 27% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions USMV and XLG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingUSMVXLG
NVIDIA CORPORATION1.64%13.10%
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION1.60%1.74%
MICROSOFT CORPORATION1.56%8.18%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON1.44%1.50%
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.1.42%2.35%
MASTERCARD INCORPORATED1.15%1.11%
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.1.81%0.98%
VISA INC.0.94%1.50%
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY1.11%0.92%
WALMART INC.0.88%1.56%
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY1.20%0.82%
APPLE INC.0.82%10.76%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in USMVOnly in XLG
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55%Alphabet Inc. 6.05%
THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53%Tesla, Inc. 2.90%
AMPHENOL CORPORATION 1.51%JPMorgan Chase & Co. 2.28%
Chubb Limited 1.50%Caterpillar Inc. 1.12%
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 1.48%Bank of America Corp. 0.96%
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. 1.46%General Electric Co. 0.82%
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED 1.36%Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 0.75%
CONSOLIDATED EDISON, INC. 1.35%Wells Fargo & Co. 0.69%

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.

USMV and XLG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesInvesco
What it isMSCI USA Min Vol FactorS&P 500 top 50
Total return, 1 year+6.6%+12.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.9 pts−5.3 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.20%
Already in the S&P 50094.8%100.0%
Holdings17051

USMV in plain words

USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% 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, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.

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, USMV or XLG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, USMV returned +6.6% and XLG returned +12.2%, so XLG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, USMV or XLG?
USMV charges 0.15% a year and XLG charges 0.20%, so USMV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do USMV and XLG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of USMV and 100% of XLG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 27% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources