Data as of .
IGV vs NLR: which is really different?
IGV holds 82.2% of its weight in S&P 500 companies and NLR 15.3%.
ETFIQ Off-Index Score: NLR scores higher
How much of it is not the index it is sold as an alternative to?
A percentile among the 371 thematic ETFs with a holdings filing. It is a position in a set, not a rating, and neither end of it is a recommendation. All thematic ETFs ranked by it · How it is computed
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IGV and NLR hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Only in IGV | Only in NLR |
|---|---|
| PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES CLASS A 9.96% | Constellation Energy Corp 9.09% |
| MICROSOFT 9.69% | Cameco Corp 7.90% |
| PALO ALTO NETWORKS 9.36% | Fortum Oyj 6.83% |
| CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS CLASS A 7.25% | Public Service Enterprise Group Inc 6.22% |
| SALESFORCE 6.78% | Nexgen Energy Ltd 5.30% |
| ORACLE 5.94% | Bwx Technologies Inc 5.21% |
| SERVICENOW 4.65% | Paladin Energy Ltd 5.21% |
| ADOBE INC 3.46% | Uranium Energy Corp 5.07% |
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.
Performance, window by window
| Window | Total return | vs the S&P 500 | vs the Nasdaq-100 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IGV | NLR | IGV | NLR | IGV | NLR | |
| 3 months | +11.9% | −7.2% | +8.7 pts | −10.5 pts | +12.7 pts | −6.4 pts |
| 6 months | +20.6% | −17.1% | +4.6 pts | −33.1 pts | −0.1 pts | −37.8 pts |
| 1 year | −9.7% | −6.1% | −27.2 pts | −23.6 pts | −32.6 pts | −29.1 pts |
| 3 years | +42.5% | +83.0% | −35.3 pts | +5.2 pts | −52.5 pts | −12.0 pts |
| Since launch | +998.5% | +183.3% | +194.1 pts | −621.0 pts | −675.4 pts | −1490.6 pts |
| IGV iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF Holds 108 stocks in cloud and software, 82% of its weight in S&P 500 companies | NLR VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF Holds 25 stocks in nuclear and uranium, 15% of its weight in S&P 500 companies | |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | iShares | VanEck |
| Theme | Cloud and software | Nuclear and uranium |
| In the S&P 500 | 82.2% | 15.3% |
| Active share vs the S&P 500 | 92.4% | 99.8% |
| In the Nasdaq-100 | 64.1% | 9.1% |
| Holdings | 108 | 25 |
| Top ten, share of the fund | 63.4% | 60.7% |
| Expense ratio | 0.38% | 0.52% |
| Fee for the differing part | 0.41% | 0.52% |
| Total return, 1 year | −9.7% | −6.1% |
| vs the S&P 500 | −27.2 pts | −23.6 pts |
| vs the Nasdaq-100 | −32.6 pts | −29.1 pts |
| Below its high | −13.8% | −31.1% |
IGV in plain words
By weight, 82% 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 63% of the fund across 108 positions, as published by its issuer for Sep 10, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned −9.7% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was behind by 27.2 pts. It sits 13.8% below its all-time high of Sep 22, 2025.
NLR in plain words
By weight, 15% of NLR's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 61% of the fund across 25 positions, as published by its issuer for Sep 10, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned −6.1% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was behind by 23.6 pts. It sits 31.1% below its all-time high of Jan 28, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which is more different from the S&P 500, IGV or NLR?
- IGV has 82% of its weight in S&P 500 names and NLR has 15%, so NLR differs more from the index.
- Which is cheaper, IGV or NLR?
- IGV charges 0.38% a year and NLR charges 0.52%, so IGV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
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 NLR, data as of Sep 11, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/themes/igv-vs-nlr Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.