IGV vs VTI
iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IGV or VTI?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IGV led over the full window, VTI over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 63.5%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IGV | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.38% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $15.1B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.02% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 113 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +4.41% | +13.10%Best |
| 1Y Return | -7.00% | +17.01%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.32% | +22.26%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.87% | +11.98%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 23.9% | 15.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -63.5% | -56.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,684 | $17,608Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 63.5% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 10, 2001 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 13, 2001 to Sep 24, 2026 (25.2 years).
IGV vs VTI growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 25.2 years both funds cover.
IGV vs VTI Performance
iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IGV returned -7.00% while VTI returned +17.01%. Year to date, IGV is up 4.41% versus a gain of 13.10% for VTI.
Over three years, IGV compounded at +16.32% per year against +22.26% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +4.87% and +11.98% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, IGV has the edge at +9.82% annualized vs +8.22%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IGV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.9% compared with 15.4% for VTI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -63.5% for IGV and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.79. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IGV charges 0.38% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $3 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IGV currently yields 0.02% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
99.1% of IGV's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 8.3% of VTI's money is in holdings IGV also owns.
Most of IGV is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
101 positions in common, counted across the 107 positions we hold weights for in IGV and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 113 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,081 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IGV (89.1% of the fund), and 2 for IGV that do not appear in VTI (0.3%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IGV | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 9.18% | 4.79% | 4.39% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 10.29% | 0.37% | 9.92% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 9.72% | 0.38% | 9.34% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 7.37% | 0.26% | 7.11% |
| CRMSalesforce Inc Crm Us Equity | 6.60% | 0.20% | 6.40% |
| ORCLOracle Corp - Common | 5.33% | 0.31% | 5.02% |
| NOWServicenow, Inc | 4.82% | 0.16% | 4.66% |
| ADBEAdobe Systems | 3.74% | 0.14% | 3.60% |
| FTNTFortinet Inc | 3.36% | 0.14% | 3.22% |
| INTUIntuit, Inc. | 3.14% | 0.12% | 3.02% |
99.1% of IGV is already inside VTI.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IGV or VTI?
IGV has an expense ratio of 0.38% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $35 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IGV or VTI?
Over the past year IGV returned -7.00% vs +17.01% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), IGV annualized +9.82% vs +8.22% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IGV or VTI?
IGV has been the more volatile fund at 23.9% annualized versus 15.4% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IGV -63.5% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both IGV and VTI?
IGV and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.79, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IGV and VTI?
99.1% of IGV's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 8.3% of VTI's is in holdings IGV also owns. They hold 101 positions in common, counted across the 107 positions we hold weights for in IGV and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IGV or VTI?
IGV yields 0.02% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IGV?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IGV led over the full window, VTI over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 63.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.