SMH vs. SOXX, SPY vs. IVV: The Most Compared ETFs of 2026

#1: SMH vs. SOXX — The Semiconductor Showdown

No pair dominated ETF.com's comparison tool in the first half of 2026 more than the VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) against the iShares Semiconductor ETF (SOXX), with 6,743 views. With the AI infrastructure buildout continuing to fuel explosive demand for chips, it's little surprise investors want to know which semiconductor ETF belongs in their portfolio.

On the surface, these two funds look nearly identical — same sector, overlapping holdings, nearly identical expense ratios (SMH at 0.35%, SOXX at 0.34%). But dig into the details and meaningful differences emerge.

The biggest distinction is portfolio construction. SMH holds just 26 stocks, making it a highly concentrated bet on the sector's largest players. NVIDIA alone represents 17.55% of the fund. SOXX, by contrast, holds 31 names and applies a more equal-weight tilt — NVIDIA sits at just 6.81% there, while Micron Technology and AMD each carry larger weights than in SMH.

That difference in construction has translated into divergent performance. Over the trailing year through mid-2026, SOXX returned 169.68% compared to SMH's 135.91% — a stunning gap driven in part by SOXX's heavier exposure to names that outperformed. Over three years, however, SMH holds the edge, returning 63.44% against SOXX's 56.95% CAGR.

Size is also a factor: SMH is the larger fund at $74.4B in AUM versus SOXX's $45.9B, and SMH's average daily dollar volume of $6.1B gives it a slight liquidity advantage. For investors who want pure, high-octane semiconductor exposure in a liquid wrapper, this debate isn't going away anytime soon.

#2: SPY vs. IVV — The Classic Duel Investors Never Stop Running

It says something about investor behavior that the most fundamental ETF comparison in all of finance — SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) versus iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) — still generates nearly 5,000 organic comparison page views in a single half-year (4,783 to be exact). Both funds track the same index, hold the same 505 stocks, and deliver virtually identical performance.

So why do investors keep comparing them? Because the devil is in the details — specifically, costs and trading dynamics.

IVV charges just 0.03% annually, while SPY charges 0.09% — a three-times cost disadvantage for SPY that, compounded over years in a large position, becomes real money. IVV's trailing 12-month tracking difference of -0.03% also slightly outpaces SPY's -0.12%, suggesting it captures a touch more of the index's return in practice.

SPY fights back on liquidity. With $33.2B in average daily dollar volume, it dwarfs IVV's $3.3B — making it the preferred vehicle for institutional traders, options users, and anyone who needs to move large blocks quickly. For long-term buy-and-hold investors, IVV's lower fee profile is the clear winner. For active traders, SPY's unmatched liquidity often justifies the cost premium.

In 2026, both funds are tracking the S&P 500's year-to-date gain of roughly 10%, with one-year returns near 22%. Identical results, just different tools for different jobs.

#3: SCHG vs. QQQM — The Budget Growth Showdown

Rounding out the top three with 4,614 views is a pairing that captures one of the more interesting debates in growth investing: Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) versus Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM). Both are popular, low-cost options for investors seeking growth exposure — but they tell very different stories.

SCHG is the fee champion at just 0.04%, compared to QQQM's 0.15%. It also offers a broader portfolio, holding 195 stocks against QQQM's 103, providing more diversification across sectors including finance and healthcare, which QQQM underweights or excludes.

QQQM, however, has the performance edge in the near term. It returned 34.08% over the trailing year versus SCHG's 16.33%, and 20.09% year-to-date versus SCHG's 3.97%. QQQM's heavier concentration in technology (nearly 45% of assets) has paid off in a market dominated by semiconductor and mega-cap tech gains.

The tradeoff is concentration versus breadth. QQQM's top 10 include names like Micron Technology (5.64%) and Intel (3.04%) — stocks that surged on AI tailwinds — giving it a more semiconductor-tilted complexion than SCHG. SCHG, with its Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Index mandate, casts a wider net that includes more healthcare and financial names.

At $99.6B in AUM, QQQM has grown into a behemoth. SCHG ($58.4B) is no slouch either. But for cost-conscious investors who want the broadest possible large-cap growth exposure, SCHG's 0.04% expense ratio is difficult to ignore — even if QQQM has recently earned its keep.

Data sourced from ETF.com as of July 2, 2026. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

Want to run your own comparisons? Use the ETF.com ETF Comparison Tool to analyze any two ETFs side by side across performance, costs, holdings, and more.

^{This article was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by ETF.com staff.}

^{Investment Risk Disclosure
The information provided on this website is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, trading advice, or any other sort of advice. Nothing on this site should be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or financial product.
General Investment Risks
Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The value of investments may fluctuate, and investors may receive back less than they originally invested. There is no guarantee that any investment strategy will achieve its objectives.
ETF-Specific Risks
Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are subject to risks similar to those of stocks and other equity securities. ETF shares are bought and sold at market price, which may differ from the fund's net asset value (NAV). Brokerage commissions may apply and will reduce returns. ETFs may be subject to the following additional risks:}

^{Market Risk: The value of an ETF may decline due to broad market fluctuations unrelated to the underlying securities.
Liquidity Risk: Some ETFs may have limited trading volume, which could make it difficult to buy or sell shares at a desired price.
Tracking Error Risk: An ETF may not perfectly replicate the performance of its benchmark index.
Concentration Risk: Sector or thematic ETFs may be concentrated in a particular industry or geography, increasing volatility.
Currency Risk: ETFs that invest in international securities may be affected by exchange rate fluctuations.
Leverage and Inverse Risk: Leveraged and inverse ETFs are designed for short-term trading and may not be suitable for long-term investors. These products use derivatives and may experience significant losses.}

^{No Warranty
While efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of information presented, no warranties are made regarding completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. Information may change without notice.
Not a Fiduciary
This site does not act as a fiduciary on behalf of any user. Users are encouraged to consult with a registered investment advisor, financial planner, or other qualified professional before making any investment decisions.}