IGF vs MCHI: Holdings Overlap
IGFiShares Global Infrastructure ETF
iShares · 88 holdings · $11.0B · as of 2026-03-31
iShares · 580 holdings · $6.3B · as of 2026-05-31
Holdings snapshots are 61 days apart (IGF: 2026-03-31, MCHI: 2026-05-31). Weights and index membership change between snapshots, so the true current overlap is typically higher than shown. For funds tracking the same index, the gap can be 5–15 points.
How similar are IGF and MCHI?
iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (IGF, by iShares) holds 88 positions; iShares MSCI China ETF (MCHI, by iShares) holds 580. They have 11 holdings in common, and by portfolio weight the two funds are 0.8% identical. In practical terms the pair is essentially distinct, holding almost none of the same securities.
- Overlap by Weight
- 0.8%Sum of the smaller weight of each shared holding
- Shared Holdings
- 11IGF holds 88 · MCHI holds 580
- Weight in Shared Holdings
- IGF 2%·MCHI 1%Share of each fund's weight in stocks both funds own
Based on each fund's latest official holdings. How is this calculated?
What makes each fund different
Only in IGF
77 of 88 positions (97.7% of the fund) are not held by MCHI. Showing the top 30 by weight.
Only in MCHI
569 of 580 positions (98.3% of the fund) are not held by IGF. Showing the top 30 by weight.
Sector Breakdown
| Sector | IGF | MCHI |
|---|---|---|
| Utilities | 39.3% | 0.5% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 0.0% | 21.1% |
| Energy | 20.7% | 2.6% |
| Industrials | 18.2% | 1.6% |
| Communication Services | 0.0% | 17.2% |
| Other Sectors | 0.1% | 28.0% |
| Unclassified | 21.4% | 28.5% |
Share of each fund's portfolio weight by GICS-style sector, compiled from issuer fund data and our own classification of the holdings, not the issuers' published sector charts. “Unclassified” is weight we could not classify (21% of IGF, 29% of MCHI).
Performance
| Fund | 1M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y (ann.) | 5Y (ann.) | 10Y (ann.) | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IGF | -1.8% | +9.0% | +12.6% | +16.5% | +10.6% | +8.0% | 2.93% |
| MCHI | +9.3% | -5.2% | -1.0% | +8.7% | -2.2% | +4.3% | 1.94% |
Total returns including dividends, from adjusted daily closes as of 2026-08-07. 3Y/5Y/10Y are annualized. Yield is trailing-12-month distributions over the last close. Past performance does not predict future results.
Project the growth of $10,000 in IGF vs MCHI →
Shared Holdings(11)
The top 10 shared positions account for 100% of the overlap, led by 836, 94C and 144.
 836China Resources Power Holdings Co Ltd | 0.14% | 0.22% | 0.14% |
|---|---|---|---|
 94CCGN Power Co Ltd | 0.14% | 0.16% | 0.14% |
 144China Merchants Port Holdings Co Ltd | 0.76% | 0.10% | 0.10% |
 135Kunlun Energy Co Ltd | 0.09% | 0.14% | 0.09% |
 HUP1Huaneng Power International Inc | 0.08% | 0.15% | 0.08% |
 270Guangdong Investment Ltd | 0.08% | 0.12% | 0.08% |
 6WXChina Longyuan Power Group Corp Ltd | 0.07% | 0.08% | 0.07% |
 384China Gas Holdings Ltd | 0.07% | 0.09% | 0.07% |
 JE2Jiangsu Expressway Co Ltd | 0.56% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| HONG KONG DOLLAR | 0.01% | 0.20% | 0.01% |
| Euro | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
How much do IGF and MCHI overlap?
IGF and MCHI overlap by 0.8% of portfolio weight. They share 11 holdings (IGF holds 88 positions and MCHI holds 580), based on each fund's latest SEC-reported holdings.
Is it redundant to own both IGF and MCHI?
The two portfolios are 0.8% identical by weight. Owning both is genuine diversification: the funds hold almost none of the same securities.
What are the biggest shared holdings of IGF and MCHI?
The largest positions held by both funds are 836, 94C, 144, 135 and HUP1. Together the top 10 shared positions account for 100% of the total overlap.
What does IGF own that MCHI doesn't?
77 positions (97.7% of IGF) are unique to IGF, led by NEE, AENA and TCL. In the other direction, 569 positions (98.3% of MCHI) are unique to MCHI.