Fund · iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF · measured from SEC filings
IGV holdings
IGV reports 110 holdings and behaves like 21.3 equally weighted ones, computed from its SEC Form N-PORT filing for 2026-06-30. The fact sheet publishes the first number; this page computes the second, and traces it across 28 quarters of filings.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-06-30Read this figure with the following in mind
5.9% of net assets is securities-lending cash collateral, excluded from the figure; counted as filed the fund would read 19.8
The figure below is what the filing says, published unchanged. What it may not do is sit beside a plain long-only fund and be read as the same quantity. How comparability is decided.
Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing; what the measure does not tell you · every fund in one table · hold it with other funds? X-ray the mix. Pricing: 100% at a quoted market price (level 1), 3 issuer countries.
What stands out
as of 2026-06-30IGV's largest investment is Palo Alto Networks Inc at 10.37% of net assets. Microsoft Corp and Palantir Technologies Inc follow; the three together are 26.15%. Ten companies are 60.65% of the fund; the other 100 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, IGV behaves like 21.3 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 2.0 times more concentrated than the median. Across 28 quarterly filings IGV has held roughly steady since 2019-09-30 (22.9 then, 21.3 now). Between the 2026-03-31 and 2026-06-30 filings 2 positions were added and 6 dropped; 14.3% of the weight moved.
Each sentence is read from the fund's own SEC filing; the class median is computed across the comparable equity funds on this site. Nothing here is a view on the fund.
Every filing since 2019
28Between 2019-09-30 and 2026-06-30, IGV went from behaving like 22.9 equally weighted positions to 21.3 — 7% fewer, while its top ten went from 57.72% to 60.65% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-30 | 110 | 21.3 | 60.65% | 10.37% |
| 2026-03-31 | 113 | 22.1 | 60.45% | 8.82% |
| 2025-12-31 | 116 | 21.6 | 61.93% | 8.97% |
| 2025-09-30 | 115 | 22 | 61.25% | 9.03% |
| 2025-06-30 | 118 | 21.4 | 61.05% | 9.07% |
| 2025-03-31 | 119 | 23.2 | 58.17% | 8.35% |
| 2024-12-31 | 123 | 22.4 | 59.24% | 8.62% |
| 2024-09-30 | 117 | 22.6 | 58.11% | 8.95% |
Earlier filings (20 more, back to 2019-09-30)
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-30 | 117 | 21 | 61.78% | 9.68% |
| 2024-03-31 | 117 | 22.1 | 59.66% | 8.83% |
| 2023-12-31 | 118 | 23.3 | 57.59% | 8.64% |
| 2023-09-30 | 117 | 23.4 | 57.31% | 8.64% |
| 2023-06-30 | 119 | 22.5 | 58.29% | 8.97% |
| 2023-03-31 | 121 | 22.6 | 58.16% | 8.92% |
| 2022-12-31 | 122 | 23.5 | 56.66% | 8.74% |
| 2022-09-30 | 118 | 25.7 | 53.64% | 8.83% |
| 2022-06-30 | 123 | 25.3 | 54.34% | 8.87% |
| 2022-03-31 | 130 | 26.3 | 52.13% | 8.55% |
| 2021-12-31 | 130 | 26.7 | 51.03% | 8.64% |
| 2021-09-30 | 122 | 26.4 | 51.78% | 9.28% |
| 2021-06-30 | 125 | 26.6 | 52.59% | 8.81% |
| 2021-03-31 | 113 | 25.6 | 53.36% | 9.21% |
| 2020-12-31 | 114 | 27.2 | 51.65% | 8.57% |
| 2020-09-30 | 103 | 24.7 | 56.14% | 8.4% |
| 2020-06-30 | 103 | 24 | 56.19% | 8.76% |
| 2020-03-31 | 102 | 24.5 | 55.7% | 8.57% |
| 2019-12-31 | 106 | 24.2 | 55.84% | 8.91% |
| 2019-09-30 | 96 | 22.9 | 57.72% | 8.8% |
One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.
Compared with, in the essays
2Overlap with other funds
1Measured against every other fund on this site, from the same filings. Combined effective holdings is how the pair behaves held in equal size.
| With | Overlap | Shared | Combined effective |
|---|---|---|---|
| IGV vs QQQ | 11.57% | 17 | 43.8 |
As filed, collateral included
5.87% collateralIGV's filing lists 111 positions including 5.87% of net assets in securities-lending cash collateral. Counted as filed the fund reads 19.8 effective holdings with a top ten of 62.91%; on its own investments — the figure above — it reads 21.3 with a top ten of 60.65%. The collateral is matched by a liability and is not a holding the fund chose; since 2026-09-18 every figure on this site sets it aside (methodology). Both numbers are in the data.
Largest positions, as filed
as of 2026-06-30The 15 largest of 110 positions in IGV's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: IGV.csv.gz.
| # | Position | Weight | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Palo Alto Networks, Inc. | 10.37% | 10.4% |
| 2 | Microsoft Corp. | 8.07% | 18.4% |
| 3 | Palantir Technologies, Inc. | 7.70% | 26.1% |
| 4 | Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. | 7.28% | 33.4% |
| 5 | Oracle Corp. | 6.26% | 39.7% |
| 6 | Salesforce, Inc. | 4.81% | 44.5% |
| 7 | AppLovin Corp. | 4.76% | 49.3% |
| 8 | Cadence Design Systems, Inc. | 3.91% | 53.2% |
| 9 | ServiceNow, Inc. | 3.87% | 57.0% |
| 10 | Fortinet, Inc. | 3.62% | 60.7% |
| 11 | Datadog, Inc. | 3.26% | 63.9% |
| 12 | Synopsys, Inc. | 3.23% | 67.1% |
| 13 | Adobe, Inc. | 3.13% | 70.3% |
| 14 | Intuit, Inc. | 2.73% | 73.0% |
| 15 | Electronic Arts, Inc. | 1.75% | 74.7% |
By country of issuer
as of 2026-06-30Share of IGV's own investments by the issuer country the filer reported (incorporation, not revenue). Each country links to every fund that holds it.
| Country | Share |
|---|---|
| United States | 99.07% |
| Canada | 0.74% |
| Netherlands° | 0.20% |
Returns the fund reported
2019-07 – 2026-06Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of IGV's own filings, 84 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.
Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.04 percentage points over 84 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: IGV.json · all funds.
Who borrows IGV's shares
2026-06-30The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-06-30, $778m was out to 25 borrowers, 5.74% of net assets. The largest, JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, held 38.5% of it.
| Borrower | On loan | Share of the loan |
|---|---|---|
| JP MORGAN SECURITIES LLC | $300m | 38.5% |
| BNP PARIBAS PRIME BROKERAGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED | $116m | 14.9% |
| CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. | $76m | 9.8% |
| National Financial Services LLC | $58m | 7.5% |
| MORGAN STANLEY & CO LLC | $43m | 5.6% |
Cash collateral reported against the loan: 5.87% of net assets, 102.2% of the amount lent. That is a floor on the collateral, not the whole of it — collateral the fund does not hold as a position is not in this filing, so a figure under 100% is not evidence of under-collateralisation. How that figure behaves across all funds. Every quarter IGV has filed, with each borrower: IGV.json · all funds.
Since the previous filing
2026-03-31 → 2026-06-30113 positions became 109: 2 added (0.1% of the fund at the later date), 6 dropped (0.5% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 14.3%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of IGV compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.
| Largest increases | 2026-03-31 | 2026-06-30 | Largest decreases | 2026-03-31 | 2026-06-30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palo Alto Networks, Inc. | 5.48% | 10.37% | Salesforce, Inc. | 7.39% | 4.81% |
| Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. | 4.21% | 7.28% | Intuit, Inc. | 4.75% | 2.73% |
| Datadog, Inc. | 1.66% | 3.26% | Oracle Corp. | 8.24% | 6.26% |
| Fortinet, Inc. | 2.21% | 3.62% | Adobe, Inc. | 4.27% | 3.13% |
| Cadence Design Systems, Inc. | 3.24% | 3.91% | Palantir Technologies, Inc. | 8.82% | 7.70% |
| Hut 8 Corp. | 0.19% | 0.44% | Autodesk, Inc. | 2.17% | 1.55% |
New: Arteris, Inc. (0.06%), N/A (0.00%). Gone: Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc. (0.29%), Onestream, Inc. (0.09%), SEMrush Holdings, Inc. (0.02%), PAR Technology Corp. (0.02%), N-able, Inc. (0.01%), Rapid7, Inc. (0.01%).
Asset categories and pricing
as of 2026-06-3094.40% equity, 5.60% short-term investment as filed; 100.0% carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's; what a low level-1 share does and does not mean is in the measure's page.
Derivative exposure and counterparties
as of 2026-06-30A position count cannot describe a fund that uses derivatives, because a swap is filed at its unrealised gain, not its exposure. These are the notionals the fund itself reported, against net assets of $13.54B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.
Full detail for every fund that files derivatives: leverage.json (CC BY 4.0).
Neighbours by effective holdings, equity funds
10Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of IGV (21.3). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.
| Fund | Reports | Behaves like | Top ten | As of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARKG ARK Genomic Revolution ETF | 33 | 21.2 | 59.16% | 2026-07-31 |
| IOO iShares Global 100 ETF | 113 | 21.3 | 57.41% | 2026-06-30 |
| SHLD Global X Defense Tech ETF | 50 | 21.3 | 59.46% | 2026-05-31 |
| IGPT Invesco AI and Next Gen Software ETF | 101 | 21.3 | 59.58% | 2026-07-31 |
| MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF | 46 | 21.3 | 60.2% | 2026-06-30 |
| FLBR Franklin FTSE Brazil ETF | 68 | 21.4 | 56.04% | 2026-06-30 |
| ICF iShares Select U.S. REIT ETF | 32 | 21.5 | 59.05% | 2026-07-31 |
| VNQ Vanguard Real Estate Index Fund | 144 | 21.6 | 54.95% | 2026-07-31 |
| GDX VanEck Gold Miners ETF | 61 | 21.6 | 58.67% | 2026-06-30 |
| FXI iShares China Large-Cap ETF | 54 | 21.7 | 58.83% | 2026-07-31 |
Measures applied in the essays
6Essays that examine IGV
5-
ARKK vs QQQ: Disruptive Innovation vs the Nasdaq-100 — What a Full Cycle Revealed
Over the trailing five years QQQ compounded at 15.6% annually while ARKK compounded at −8.1% — the two funds did not just diverge in degree, they diverged...
-
SCHG vs VUG: Large-Cap Growth Twins — Where the Index Construction Diverges
On the realized record, SCHG and VUG are statistically indistinguishable: a 1 basis-point fee gap, near-identical five-year volatility, and drawdowns within...
-
VGT vs QQQ: Tech Sector vs Nasdaq-100 — How Different Are They Really?
VGT is a pure GICS Information Technology sector fund; QQQ is the Nasdaq-100, a multi-sector index that excludes some of the names most people assume are...
-
QQQ vs QQQM: Same Index, Different Wrapper — When the Cheaper Twin Actually Wins
QQQ and QQQM track the identical index (the Nasdaq-100), so their return difference over five years is a rounding error — 17.2% vs 17.3% CAGR. The real...
-
IGV vs WCLD vs QQQ: Breaking Down the 'Tech Beta' Stack
IGV, WCLD, and QQQ are sold as "tech ETFs" but they are not interchangeable. QQQ is a diversified large-cap growth index, IGV is a concentrated software...
Mentions are detected across the full text of every article, so an appearance may be a passing comparison rather than the subject. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell — see the disclaimer.