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 MTUM: how they differ

IGM and MTUM hold 37% of their weight in the same names, and IGM returned more over the year.

iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IGM and MTUM hold 37% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IGM and MTUM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIGMMTUM
MICRON TECHNOLOGY4.73%5.20%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES3.66%5.39%
ALPHABET CLASS A4.23%2.69%
INTEL CORPORATION2.21%4.14%
ALPHABET CLASS C3.39%2.13%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC1.89%3.48%
LAM RESEARCH1.66%2.31%
APPLIED MATERIAL INC1.61%2.87%
PALO ALTO NETWORKS1.22%2.40%
SANDISK1.12%3.10%
TEXAS INSTRUMENT INC1.05%1.18%
KLA1.03%1.18%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IGMOnly in MTUM
MICROSOFT 10.11%JOHNSON & JOHNSON 3.38%
APPLE 9.14%EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 2.69%
NVIDIA 8.89%CATERPILLAR INC 2.14%
BROADCOM INC 7.42%UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 2.08%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A 4.87%COCA-COLA 1.89%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES CLASS A 1.70%MERCK & CO INC 1.83%
NETFLIX 1.43%CHEVRON 1.52%
ORACLE 1.16%GE VERNOVA 1.49%

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 MTUM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IGM
iShares Expanded Tech Sector ETF
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesiShares
What it isExpanded Tech SectorMSCI USA Momentum Factor
Total return, 1 year+32.7%+21.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+15.2 pts+4.3 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50092.0%98.2%
Holdings272128

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.

MTUM in plain words

MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 128 positions, with the top ten at 35.3%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, IGM or MTUM?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IGM returned +32.7% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so IGM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IGM or MTUM?
IGM charges 0.37% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so MTUM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IGM and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of IGM and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 37% 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 MTUM, 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 MTUM, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/igm-vs-mtum Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources