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 IWF: how they differ

IGM and IWF hold 61% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and IWF hold 61% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMIWF
NVIDIA8.89%15.46%
APPLE9.14%7.77%
MICROSOFT10.11%5.55%
BROADCOM INC7.42%5.10%
ALPHABET CLASS A4.23%5.88%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A4.87%3.52%
ALPHABET CLASS C3.39%4.77%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY4.73%3.35%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES3.66%2.49%
LAM RESEARCH1.66%1.13%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES CLASS A1.70%1.12%
APPLIED MATERIAL INC1.61%1.09%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in IWF
INTEL CORPORATION 2.21%TESLA INC 3.22%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.89%ELI LILLY 2.72%
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 0.98%VISA CLASS A 1.84%
SALESFORCE 0.89%MASTERCARD CLASS A 1.39%
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 0.86%CATERPILLAR INC 1.11%
QUALCOMM 0.83%GE AEROSPACE 1.02%
SHOPIFY SUBORDINATE VOTING CLASS A 0.69%GE VERNOVA 0.75%
ACCENTURE PLC CLASS A 0.49%HOME DEPOT 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 Sep 10, 2026.

IGM and IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isExpanded Tech SectorRussell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%93.6%
Holdings272315

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.

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 315 positions, with the top ten at 57.3%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or IWF?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and IWF returned +7.0%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or IWF?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 61% 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 IWF, 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 IWF, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/igm-vs-iwf Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources