Data as of . Every figure is the themes desk's own, on published data.
IGV vs QTUM
6% of the two portfolios are the same securities at the same weight.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IGV and QTUM hold 6% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IGV | QTUM |
|---|---|---|
| Cadence Design Systems, Inc. | 3.92% | 1.04% |
| Synopsys, Inc. | 3.23% | 1.04% |
| Microsoft Corp. | 8.08% | 1.00% |
| Palantir Technologies, Inc. | 7.71% | 0.96% |
| Oracle Corp. | 6.26% | 0.78% |
| Nutanix, Inc. | 0.51% | 1.10% |
| D-Wave Quantum, Inc. | 0.33% | 1.10% |
| Teradata Corp. | 0.12% | 1.12% |
| Only in IGV | Only in QTUM |
|---|---|
| Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 10.38% | Arqit Quantum Inc 2.43% |
| Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. 7.29% | Horizon Quantum Holdings LTD 2.40% |
| Salesforce, Inc. 4.81% | Quantinuum Inc 1.58% |
| AppLovin Corp. 4.76% | Astera Labs Inc 1.56% |
| ServiceNow, Inc. 3.87% | Applied Materials Inc 1.56% |
| Fortinet, Inc. 3.62% | KLA Corp 1.51% |
| Datadog, Inc. 3.26% | MKS Inc 1.51% |
| Adobe, Inc. 3.13% | Onto Innovation Inc 1.50% |
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 as filed for Jun 30, 2026.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | vs the S&P 500 | vs the Nasdaq-100 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IGV | QTUM | IGV | QTUM | IGV | QTUM | |
| 3 months | +9.1% | −3.0% | +4.4 pts | −7.7 pts | +7.0 pts | −5.1 pts |
| 6 months | +18.9% | +35.5% | +3.7 pts | +20.3 pts | −1.3 pts | +15.3 pts |
| 1 year | −2.1% | +58.6% | −22.1 pts | +38.7 pts | −27.7 pts | +33.0 pts |
| 3 years | +43.9% | +196.2% | −34.1 pts | +118.3 pts | −49.6 pts | +102.8 pts |
| Since launch | +1031.5% | +538.2% | +220.2 pts | +337.0 pts | −652.5 pts | +225.3 pts |
| IGV iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF | QTUM Defiance Quantum ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | iShares | Defiance |
| Theme | Cloud and software | Quantum computing |
| In the S&P 500 | 83.2% | 35.6% |
| Active share vs the S&P 500 | 92.4% | 83.5% |
| In the Nasdaq-100 | 66.9% | 27.8% |
| Holdings | 107 | 86 |
| Top ten, share of the fund | 60.7% | 17.0% |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.40% |
| Fee for the differing part | not published | 0.48% |
| Total return, 1 year | −2.1% | +58.6% |
| vs the S&P 500 | −22.1 pts | +38.7 pts |
| vs the Nasdaq-100 | −27.7 pts | +33.0 pts |
| Below its high | −11.2% | −12.2% |
IGV in plain words
By weight, 83% of IGV's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 92%. The top ten holdings are 61% of the fund across 107 positions, as filed for Jun 30, 2026. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 the fund returned −2.1% with distributions reinvested against +20.0% for the S&P 500, so a holder was behind by 22.1 pts. It sits 11.2% below its all-time high of Sep 22, 2025.
QTUM in plain words
By weight, 36% of QTUM's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 84%. The top ten holdings are 17% of the fund across 86 positions, as filed for Jun 30, 2026. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 the fund returned +58.6% with distributions reinvested against +20.0% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 38.7 pts. It sits 12.2% below its all-time high of Jun 2, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Do IGV and QTUM hold the same stocks?
- By their latest filings, 6% of their books are the same securities at the same weight, which is mostly different names. Overlap is the sum of the smaller weight of every security they share.
- Which is more different from the S&P 500, IGV or QTUM?
- IGV has 83% of its weight in S&P 500 names and QTUM has 36%, so IGV differs more from the index.
Other comparisons
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, IGV against QTUM, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/themes/IGV-QTUM.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.