What is an ETF and how does it differ from a mutual fund?

An ETF, or exchange-traded fund, is a basket of securities that tracks an index and trades on a stock exchange like a single share. Unlike mutual funds, which are priced once daily, ETFs allow investors to buy and sell throughout the trading day at market prices. IGV and SMH are both ETFs that provide targeted exposure to specific technology sub-sectors. This structure often means lower costs and greater flexibility compared to traditional funds, making them popular for tactical allocation within a portfolio.

What does an expense ratio measure and why does it matter for long-term returns?

An expense ratio is the annual fee charged by an ETF, expressed as a percentage of assets. It directly reduces investor returns. IGV has an expense ratio of 0.38%, while SMH charges 0.35%. Although the difference of 0.03 percentage points seems small, compounding over decades can meaningfully affect net returns. For example, on a $10,000 investment, the annual cost difference is $3. Over many years, this gap grows due to the impact of fee drag on compound growth, making lower-cost options generally more efficient for long-term holders.

What is a tracking difference and how is it reported?

Tracking difference refers to the gap between an ETF’s total return and the performance of its underlying index, after fees and operational costs. While specific tracking difference figures for IGV and SMH are not available in the provided data, this metric is crucial for assessing how efficiently a fund replicates its benchmark. Factors like cash drag, securities lending, and rebalancing impact contribute to variations. Investors should consult official fund documents for detailed tracking analyses to understand potential discrepancies beyond just the headline expense ratio.

Which sector exposure does IGV provide compared to SMH?

IGV, the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF, provides exposure to software companies, with top holdings including PANW, PLTR, and MSFT. In contrast, SMH, the VanEck Semiconductor ETF, focuses on semiconductor firms, led by NVDA, TSM, and AMD. These funds represent distinct segments within the broader technology sector. Software companies often benefit from recurring revenue models and high margins, while semiconductor firms are tied to hardware cycles and AI demand. Understanding these differences helps investors diversify their technology exposure effectively.

How do the top holdings of IGV and SMH differ in concentration?

SMH exhibits higher single-stock concentration, with its top holding NVDA representing 22.52% of the fund. In comparison, IGV’s largest position PANW accounts for 9.02%. This means SMH is more sensitive to the performance of NVIDIA alone, creating greater idiosyncratic risk. IGV spreads its risk more evenly across its top software stocks. High concentration in SMH can amplify returns during tech upcycles but may also lead to sharper declines if NVIDIA faces specific corporate or market challenges, unlike IGV’s relatively more distributed holdings structure.

Are there any overlapping top holdings between IGV and SMH?

Based on the provided top 10 holdings, there are no shared companies between IGV and SMH. IGV’s list features software and cloud providers like PANW, PLTR, and CRM, while SMH’s includes chip makers such as NVDA, TSM, and AVGO. This lack of overlap indicates that the funds serve complementary roles within a technology allocation rather than duplicative ones. Investors seeking diversified tech exposure might hold both to capture growth from different parts of the ecosystem, avoiding unintended concentration in similar business models.

How do the dividend yields compare between IGV and SMH?

SMH offers a dividend yield of 0.18%, providing modest income to shareholders, whereas IGV has a negligible yield of 0.02%. Both yields are low compared to income-focused ETFs, reflecting their growth-oriented sectors where companies typically reinvest earnings rather than distribute them. While SMH’s yield is higher, it remains modest. Income-focused investors might find neither fund suitable as primary holdings. However, these small yields can still be reinvested to compound growth over time, aligning with total return objectives rather than cash flow needs for these technology sub-sectors.

How does fund size impact liquidity and trading costs for these ETFs?

Fund assets influence liquidity and bid-ask spreads. SMH has significantly higher net assets at $74.1 billion compared to IGV’s $14.1 billion. Larger asset bases generally support more robust trading volumes, potentially leading to tighter spreads and lower transaction costs for investors. While IGV is still substantial, SMH’s size enhances its marketability. High liquidity ensures easier entry and exit with minimal price impact. Investors should consider trading volume data alongside assets under management when evaluating execution quality for both funds, especially for larger orders where liquidity matters most.

How does the inception date affect the historical data available for each fund?

IGV was launched on 10 July 2001, giving it a longer track record for analysing performance across multiple market cycles, including the dot-com aftermath and subsequent growth periods. SMH was founded on 20 December 2011, resulting in a shorter operational history. This means SMH has fewer data points for backtesting under diverse conditions. While IGV offers more historical context, SMH’s performance reflects the semiconductor supercycle of the past decade. Investors should note that past performance data varies in depth, impacting how robustly each fund can be compared over long-term horizons.

What should investors consider when choosing between sector-specific ETFs for portfolio allocation?

Investors should assess how sector-specific ETFs like IGV and SMH fit their broader asset allocation. Consider the correlation with existing holdings to avoid unintended concentration. IGV targets software, which may have different cyclical drivers than SMH’s semiconductor focus. Evaluate expense ratios (0.38% vs 0.35%), dividend yields, and risk tolerances. Sector funds can enhance diversification within technology but increase volatility. Reviewing individual holdings helps ensure alignment with investment goals. Regular rebalancing maintains desired exposure levels, preventing any single sector from dominating portfolio risk unnecessarily over time.

What are common pitfalls to avoid when comparing technology sector ETFs?

Common pitfalls include focusing solely on past returns without considering expense ratios or concentration risks. Both IGV and SMH have high costs compared to broad market index funds. Investors might also overlook sector correlations, mistakenly thinking they are diversified by holding multiple tech funds. Checking top holdings overlap is crucial. Dividend yields may be low, so income expectations should be managed. Finally, ensure the data is current; figures like assets and expense ratios change. Always read the fund prospectus for detailed risks rather than relying only on headline comparisons.

Is this comparison suitable for making immediate investment decisions?

No, this comparison is for educational purposes only. It highlights differences in fees, holdings, and sector focus between IGV and SMH. Individual circumstances, such as risk tolerance, investment horizon, and existing portfolio composition, are not considered here. ETFs carry market risks, and past performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should conduct thorough independent research and consider consulting a qualified financial adviser before making any investment decisions. Data provided is as of September 2026 and may change. Always review official fund documents for the most current information.

IGV vs SMH

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

This page compares the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV) and the VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH). Explore key differences in their expense ratios of 0.38% and 0.35%, distinct top holdings like PANW and NVDA, dividend yields, and how each fund tracks its respective technology sub-sector. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

IGV

Metric

SMH

0.38%

Expense Ratio

0.35%

0.02%

Dividend Yield

0.18%

$14.09B

Net Assets

$74.06B

109

Holdings

Jul 10, 2001

Inception Date

Dec 20, 2011

–

Index Tracked

–

Technology

Fund Category

Technology

SMH costs about $3.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

IGV vs VOO

IGV vs VOO: 0.38% vs 0.03% fees, 0.02% vs 1.03% yields. Compare software exposure, large-cap diversification, and top holdings including MSFT.

IGV vs XLK

Compare IGV and XLK. Analyse expense ratios of 0.38% vs 0.08%, net assets, dividend yields, and top holdings to understand their market tracking differences.

IGV vs QQQM

Compare IGV vs QQQM. Analyze expense ratios (0.38% vs 0.15%), dividends, top holdings like MSFT, and tracking methods for these tech sector ETFs.

Investment Analysis

IGV

Pros

The fund has accumulated significant assets of $14.1 billion, enhancing liquidity and stability for investors.
Launched in July 2001, its long track record provides reliable historical performance data for analysis.
With no shared top holdings with the semiconductor ETF, it offers distinct exposure within the broader technology sector.

Considerations

An expense ratio of 0.38% is relatively high compared to many other broad market index funds.
The dividend yield of 0.02% is negligible, making it unsuitable for income-focused investors.
Concentration in the software sector exposes the fund to specific regulatory and competitive risks.

SMH

Pros

The fund manages substantial net assets of $74.1 billion, supporting robust trading volume and lower spreads.
A dividend yield of 0.18% provides modest income, unlike the near-zero yield of the software ETF.
Exposure to leading semiconductor companies complements software stocks, creating distinct sector differentiation within technology.

Considerations

The expense ratio of 0.35%, while lower than the software fund, remains above typical zero-fee or low-cost index options.
A heavy single-stock concentration, with the top holding at 22.52%, increases vulnerability to specific corporate events.
Founded in December 2011, the fund has a shorter operational history than the software sector ETF.

About IGV and SMH

IGV (IGV)

The iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV) offers investors exposure to a broad basket of companies within the software and information technology services sectors. With a market capitalisation focus on large, mid, and small-cap software firms, it aims to reflect the performance of the expanded tech software industry. The fund holds approximately 109 positions, providing diversification within the sector while concentrating on businesses involved in developing, maintaining, and supporting software applications. Investors should note that the fund’s value can fluctuate significantly due to its focus on a single sector. While it provides an efficient way to access the tech-software theme, returns are not guaranteed, and market conditions can impact performance. The expense ratio is 0.38%, and it currently reports a very low dividend yield.

SMH (SMH)

The VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) offers investors a way to access the technology sector, specifically focusing on semiconductor companies. Launched in December 2011, this fund has grown significantly, managing over USD 74 billion in net assets as of its most recent report. It holds a concentrated portfolio of 26 companies, providing targeted exposure to key players in the chip manufacturing industry. With an expense ratio of 0.35%, it is positioned as a cost-effective option for those seeking sector-specific diversification. While the dividend yield is modest at 0.18%, the primary appeal of SMH lies in its potential to capitalise on technological advancements and digital demand. However, it is essential for investors to recognise that technology sector performance can fluctuate, and values may rise and fall. This ETF serves as an educational tool for understanding semiconductor market dynamics rather than a guaranteed return vehicle.

Buy IGV or SMH in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

IGV vs SMH

Fund Snapshot