IGV is a technology-focused equity ETF from IShares, while QQQ is an equity ETF from Invesco. IGV and QQQ show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 13.73%. They share 19 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by MSFT, PLTR, and PANW.
Freshly computed.
Quick Answer
IGV is a technology-focused equity ETF from IShares, while QQQ is an equity ETF from Invesco. IGV and QQQ show limited overlap, with an estimated weighted overlap of 13.73%. They share 19 holdings in the loaded dataset, led by MSFT, PLTR, and PANW.
Data Freshness
Review the methodology for the overlap formula and refresh policy.
Compare another pair
IGV is a technology-focused equity ETF from IShares, while QQQ is an equity ETF from Invesco. IGV and QQQ do not own much of the same portfolio weight. That usually means you are combining different parts of the market, with only a small amount of duplication through names like MSFT, PLTR, and PANW.
IGV is a technology-focused equity ETF from IShares, while QQQ is an equity ETF from Invesco. Neither fund clearly dominates on breadth, so the practical difference is more about weighting, index construction, and cost. QQQ has the lower expense ratio, while IGV charges more for its exposure.
The overlap is driven by a relatively small set of large shared positions. The top three shared holdings account for 60.2% of the score, which means the result is heavily influenced by the biggest common weights rather than a long tail of tiny positions.
Because IGV and QQQ are closer in breadth, the better fit usually comes down to index methodology, issuer preference, and cost. QQQ has the lower expense ratio, while IGV charges more for its exposure.
Concentration
The top three shared holdings explain 60.2% of the full overlap score.
That helps show whether the score comes from a handful of giant shared positions or from a broader mix of common holdings.
Shared Sector Tilt
Sector tags are not consistently available for the biggest shared positions in this dataset, so this comparison leans more on the specific holdings than on sector labels.
These are the holdings contributing the most to the overlap score between IGV and QQQ.
| Holding | Name | IGV Wt. | QQQ Wt. | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MSFT | Microsoft Corp. | 8.36% | 5.63% | 5.63% |
| PLTR | Palantir Technologies, Inc. | 8.82% | 1.90% | 1.90% |
| PANW | Palo Alto Networks, Inc. | 5.48% | 0.74% | 0.74% |
| APP | AppLovin Corp. | 4.56% | 0.69% | 0.69% |
| INTU | Intuit, Inc. | 4.75% | 0.68% | 0.68% |
| ADBE | Adobe, Inc. | 4.27% | 0.56% | 0.56% |
| CRWD | Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. | 4.21% | 0.56% | 0.56% |
| CDNS | Cadence Design Systems, Inc. | 3.24% | 0.43% | 0.43% |
| SNPS | Synopsys, Inc. | 3.25% | 0.43% | 0.43% |
| FTNT | Fortinet, Inc. | 2.21% | 0.34% | 0.34% |
IGV is a technology-focused equity ETF from IShares, while QQQ is an equity ETF from Invesco. The overlap exists because both funds allocate meaningful weight to the same holdings. In this dataset, the biggest shared drivers are MSFT, PLTR, and PANW, which appear in both portfolios and push the overlap score higher.
Holding both IGV and QQQ can make sense if you want exposure to different sleeves of the market. The overlap is small enough that both funds may still improve diversification.
Go deeper
Portwise gives you full portfolio diagnostics — concentration risk, hidden risk scoring, drawdown analysis, and risk evolution tracking. Free to start.
Stay informed
Portfolio overlap alerts, new comparison data, and investing insights from the CG Corp team. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
A straightforward approach used by portfolio analysts.
For every stock that appears in both ETFs, we take the smaller of the two weights. Adding up all those minimums gives the total overlap percentage. A score of 100% means the two ETFs hold the exact same stocks in the same proportions.
Want the full explanation? Read the methodology page.