Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

DYNF vs IGM: how they differ

DYNF and IGM hold 47% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and IGM hold 47% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DYNF and IGM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDYNFIGM
NVIDIA8.13%8.89%
APPLE7.62%9.14%
MICROSOFT4.75%10.11%
BROADCOM INC2.59%7.42%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A2.42%4.87%
ALPHABET CLASS A2.39%4.23%
ALPHABET CLASS C1.98%3.39%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY1.83%4.73%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC1.54%1.89%
LAM RESEARCH1.53%1.66%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES1.50%3.66%
APPLIED MATERIAL INC1.20%1.61%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DYNFOnly in IGM
AMAZON.COM INC 4.09%KLA 1.03%
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 3.46%SHOPIFY SUBORDINATE VOTING CLASS A 0.69%
EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 2.73%CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS 0.35%
BANK OF AMERICA 2.17%MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC 0.34%
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2.03%SYNOPSYS 0.34%
CATERPILLAR INC 1.65%TE CONNECTIVITY PLC 0.27%
TESLA INC 1.52%NXP SEMICONDUCTORS NV 0.26%
CHEVRON 1.51%CELESTICA 0.18%

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 Sep 10, 2026.

DYNF and IGM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isU.S. Equity Factor Rotation ActiveExpanded Tech Sector
Total return, 1 year+20.8%+32.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.3 pts+15.2 pts
Expense ratio0.26%0.37%
Already in the S&P 50098.8%92.0%
Holdings234272

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 234 positions, with the top ten at 40.3%.

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 Sep 10, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 272 positions, with the top ten at 58.6%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or IGM?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and IGM returned +32.7%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DYNF or IGM?
DYNF charges 0.26% a year and IGM charges 0.37%, so DYNF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DYNF and IGM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 92% of IGM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 47% 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.

DYNF against IGM, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, DYNF against IGM, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/dynf-vs-igm Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources