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

IYW vs MOAT: how they differ

IYW and MOAT hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and IYW returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Technology ETF and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, IYW and MOAT hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions IYW and MOAT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingIYWMOAT
MICROSOFT10.75%2.79%
NVIDIA14.10%2.58%
BROADCOM INC4.07%2.23%
APPLIED MATERIAL INC1.78%1.41%
PALO ALTO NETWORKS1.35%2.40%
META PLATFORMS CLASS A4.17%1.29%
AMPHENOL CORP CLASS A0.98%1.31%
FORTINET0.48%2.19%
DATADOG INC CLASS A0.36%2.00%
ENTEGRIS INC0.10%1.27%
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES0.07%2.37%
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE0.06%1.29%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in IYWOnly in MOAT
APPLE 13.20%Veeva Systems Inc 3.41%
ALPHABET CLASS A 5.48%Airbnb Inc 2.88%
ALPHABET CLASS C 4.44%Charles Schwab Corp/The 2.75%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY 3.35%Lpl Financial Holdings Inc 2.73%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 3.08%Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.58%
INTEL CORPORATION 2.27%Estee Lauder Cos Inc/The 2.52%
LAM RESEARCH 1.85%Danaher Corp 2.44%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES CLASS A 1.83%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.

IYW and MOAT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
IYW
iShares U.S. Technology ETF
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanEck
What it isU.S. TechnologyMorningstar Wide Moat
Total return, 1 year+34.9%+11.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+17.4 pts−6.2 pts
Expense ratio0.37%0.46%
Already in the S&P 50095.5%91.6%
Holdings15155

IYW in plain words

IYW is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +34.9% 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, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 151 positions, with the top ten at 64.9%.

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, IYW or MOAT?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IYW returned +34.9% and MOAT returned +11.3%, so IYW returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, IYW or MOAT?
IYW charges 0.37% a year and MOAT charges 0.46%, so IYW is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do IYW and MOAT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of IYW 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.

IYW against MOAT, 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, IYW against MOAT, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/iyw-vs-moat Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources