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

IGM vs IJS: how they differ

IGM and IJS hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and IJS hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and IJS both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMIJS
BLK CSH FND TREASURY SL AGENCY0.05%1.68%
USD CASH0.05%0.05%
MATCH GROUP INC0.04%1.08%
QORVO0.04%0.37%
EPAM SYSTEMS0.03%0.66%
MAXLINEAR0.03%0.37%
PLEXUS CORP0.03%0.41%
RALLIANT0.03%0.38%
ACI WORLDWIDE0.02%0.20%
AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES0.02%0.14%
BOX INC CLASS A0.02%0.18%
DIODES0.02%0.47%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in IJS
MICROSOFT 10.11%PAYCOM SOFTWARE 0.99%
APPLE 9.14%SM ENERGY 0.96%
NVIDIA 8.89%CARMAX INC 0.95%
BROADCOM INC 7.42%EASTMAN CHEMICAL 0.86%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A 4.87%JACKSON FINANCIAL CLASS A 0.81%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY 4.73%LINCOLN NATIONAL CORP 0.79%
ALPHABET CLASS A 4.23%CONAGRA BRANDS 0.78%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 3.66%MATSON INC 0.76%

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.

IGM and IJS on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
IJS
iShares S&P Small-Cap 600 Value ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isExpanded Tech SectorS&P Small-Cap 600 Value
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+22.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts+4.7 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%0.0%
Holdings272466

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.

IJS in plain words

IJS is an index equity fund tracking the S&P Small-Cap 600 Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 466 positions, with the top ten at 9.7%. It sat 4.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or IJS?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and IJS returned +22.1%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or IJS?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and IJS charges 0.18%, so IJS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and IJS overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 0% of IJS by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources