Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IGM vs MOAT: how they differ
IGM and MOAT hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IGM and MOAT hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IGM | MOAT |
|---|---|---|
| MICROSOFT | 10.11% | 2.79% |
| NVIDIA | 8.89% | 2.58% |
| BROADCOM INC | 7.42% | 2.23% |
| APPLIED MATERIAL INC | 1.61% | 1.41% |
| META PLATFORMS CLASS A | 4.87% | 1.29% |
| PALO ALTO NETWORKS | 1.22% | 2.40% |
| AMPHENOL CORP CLASS A | 0.88% | 1.31% |
| FORTINET | 0.44% | 2.19% |
| MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC | 0.34% | 1.34% |
| DATADOG INC CLASS A | 0.33% | 2.00% |
| NXP SEMICONDUCTORS NV | 0.26% | 1.24% |
| FAIR ISAAC | 0.10% | 1.65% |
| Only in IGM | Only in MOAT |
|---|---|
| APPLE 9.14% | Veeva Systems Inc 3.41% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY 4.73% | Airbnb Inc 2.88% |
| ALPHABET CLASS A 4.23% | Charles Schwab Corp/The 2.75% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 3.66% | Lpl Financial Holdings Inc 2.73% |
| ALPHABET CLASS C 3.39% | Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.58% |
| INTEL CORPORATION 2.21% | Estee Lauder Cos Inc/The 2.52% |
| CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.89% | Danaher Corp 2.44% |
| PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES CLASS A 1.70% | Mondelez International Inc 2.43% |
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 iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF | MOAT VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | VanEck |
| What it is | Expanded Tech Sector | Morningstar Wide Moat |
| Total return, 1 year | +32.7% | +11.3% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +15.2 pts | −6.2 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.37% | 0.46% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 92.0% | 91.6% |
| Holdings | 272 | 55 |
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.
MOAT in plain words
MOAT is an index equity fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.46% 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 55 positions, with the top ten at 27.1%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IGM or MOAT?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and MOAT returned +11.3%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IGM or MOAT?
- IGM charges 0.37% a year and MOAT charges 0.46%, so IGM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IGM and MOAT overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 92% of MOAT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 14% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IGM against MOAT, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/igm-vs-moat Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources