What Are IGV’s Holdings? Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, ServiceNow Weights and AI Risks

IGV’s core holdings are not just traditional SaaS companies. It is a software risk basket made up of systems software, application software, cybersecurity, data platforms, and some interactive media companies. As of July 21, 2026, IGV had about $13.15 billion in net assets. As of July 20, 2026, it held 108 positions, with a P/E ratio of 34.81, a three-year beta of 1.31, and an expense ratio of 0.39%. The weights and business profiles of Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, and ServiceNow determine IGV’s exposure to AI platform opportunities, enterprise SaaS pressure, AI cloud capex, and workflow automation demand.

Key Takeaways

• IGV is a software ETF, not a single SaaS fund.
• Microsoft has the highest weight and defines IGV’s platform-software profile.
• Salesforce represents AI substitution pressure on enterprise application software.
• Oracle offers both AI cloud upside and capex risk.
• ServiceNow is a key indicator for AI workflow adoption.
• To assess IGV, break down weight, business type, and AI monetization ability.

What Are IGV’s Holdings? Start With Fund Positioning and Industry Exposure

IGV’s holdings mainly come from the North American software industry and include some interactive media and services companies. That makes it better suited for concentrated exposure to software, cloud, cybersecurity, data platforms, and enterprise applications. It is not designed to represent the full AI technology supply chain. If you want to track whether the software layer is rebounding, IGV is a more direct tool. If you want exposure to chips, hardware, cloud platforms, and large-cap technology stocks, QQQ, XLK, or semiconductor ETFs offer broader exposure.

According to iShares’ description of the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF, IGV tracks North American software companies and some interactive media and services companies. Its benchmark is the S&P North American Expanded Technology Software Index. This definition matters: IGV is not an “all technology ETF,” nor is it an “AI hardware ETF.” It is an industry ETF centered on software. Its holdings include systems software, application software, cybersecurity, data platforms, enterprise workflows, developer tools, cloud applications, and a small number of digital media platforms.

From an industry exposure perspective, IGV is highly concentrated in software. As of July 20, 2026, Application Software accounted for 53.34% of the fund, Systems Software accounted for 42.62%, Interactive Home accounted for 3.27%, and other categories, interactive media, and cash made up smaller portions. This means IGV’s volatility mainly comes from two directions: whether application software can defend enterprise IT budgets, renewal rates, and seat expansion; and whether systems software can continue to receive valuation support through cloud platforms, AI infrastructure, and enterprise ecosystems.

AI’s impact on IGV is not one-directionally negative. Low-differentiation SaaS may be hit by AI-native tools, internally built agents, and tighter enterprise budgets. But cybersecurity, data governance, observability, identity management, developer tools, and workflow automation may become essential software layers as enterprises move AI into production. When assessing IGV, you should not simply ask whether AI will replace software. You should ask which software companies can become entry points for AI deployment and which ones are being re-examined as cost items.

Summary: IGV is not a way to “buy all technology stocks.” It is concentrated exposure to the North American software industry. AI budget reallocation will affect IGV, but the impact depends on the weight structure across application software, systems software, cybersecurity, and data platforms. Application software is more exposed to renewals, seat expansion, and enterprise budgets. Systems software depends more on platform capability, cloud growth, and AI cost control. Cybersecurity and data platforms may gain higher budget priority because of AI production needs. Investors should not judge risk by the fund name alone; they should first break down industry exposure and key holdings.

How Much Weight Do Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, and ServiceNow Have in IGV?

Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, and ServiceNow are four representative IGV holdings that deserve close attention. Microsoft has the highest weight and represents platform software and AI cloud. Salesforce represents enterprise application software. Oracle represents databases, cloud infrastructure, and AI capex. ServiceNow represents enterprise workflows and AI automation. Together, these four companies account for close to one-quarter of the fund, enough to influence IGV’s style, volatility, and market narrative.

According to IGV’s latest holdings, Microsoft had a weight of about 8.48%, Salesforce about 5.20%, Oracle about 5.05%, and ServiceNow about 3.98%. Together, these four companies represented roughly 22.71% of the fund. That shows that although IGV holds 108 positions, its top software names still have a meaningful impact on fund performance. iShares also notes that holdings can change, and that market value, weight, and notional value are based on investment book records, which may differ from fund accounting records and final NAV valuation.

The risks represented by these four companies are not the same. Microsoft combines systems software, enterprise subscriptions, Azure, Copilot, and a developer ecosystem, giving IGV a stronger platform-software profile. Salesforce represents CRM, Slack, Data 360, and Agentforce, reflecting whether enterprise application software can use AI to defend against a revaluation of the seat-based model. Oracle is a hybrid of databases, cloud infrastructure, and enterprise software, offering AI cloud growth while introducing high capex and free cash flow pressure. ServiceNow represents ITSM, workflows, AI agents, and enterprise process automation, making it an important window into AI application-layer adoption.

This also explains why IGV cannot be summarized simply as “software stocks going up or down.” If Microsoft gains valuation support from strong Azure and Copilot performance, IGV benefits. If Salesforce’s valuation compresses because CRM seat expansion slows, IGV comes under pressure. If Oracle delivers strong OCI growth but free cash flow deteriorates, the fund receives both growth upside and cash-flow risk. If ServiceNow proves that AI workflows can drive subscription expansion, IGV’s application-layer narrative becomes stronger.

Summary: Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, and ServiceNow are key to understanding IGV. Microsoft defines IGV’s platform-software profile. Salesforce determines its sensitivity to enterprise SaaS budgets. Oracle determines its AI cloud and capex risk. ServiceNow determines whether AI workflows can become enterprise software spending. IGV’s risk cannot be summarized only as “software ETF risk.” You need to examine the business differences among high-weight holdings. The real tracking points are weight, business type, earnings indicators, and AI monetization paths, not just the top-ten list itself.

Why Is Microsoft Both a Defensive Anchor and an AI Cost Risk in IGV?

Microsoft has the highest weight in IGV, which makes the fund more than a traditional software ETF. It gives IGV exposure to cloud platforms, enterprise subscriptions, developer ecosystems, and the AI application layer. Microsoft’s strengths are its large customer base, strong platform stickiness, and clearer AI monetization path. Its risk is that AI infrastructure investment may pressure cloud gross margins and free cash flow. To assess Microsoft’s contribution to IGV, you cannot look only at Azure growth; you also need to watch AI costs, Copilot paid adoption, and capital returns.

Fundamentally, Microsoft remains IGV’s quality anchor. According to Microsoft FY26 Q3 performance, revenue grew 18% year over year and operating income grew 20%. In Microsoft’s Intelligent Cloud performance, Azure and other cloud services revenue grew 40%, showing continued strong demand for enterprise AI, cloud migration, and platform services. For IGV, a higher Microsoft weight makes the fund less like a pure SaaS basket and more like mixed exposure to software platforms and cloud platforms.

Microsoft’s AI opportunity does not come only from compute. It also comes from software distribution. Azure supports training, inference, data, and enterprise AI infrastructure. Microsoft 365 Copilot provides application-layer monetization. GitHub, Dynamics, Security, and Power Platform embed AI into development, sales, security, and business workflows. According to Microsoft’s FY26 Q3 earnings call, management expected Azure revenue to grow 39%–40% in constant currency in the fourth quarter and noted that growth in paid Copilot seats would drive ARPU expansion. This combination of cloud consumption, subscription software, and AI assistants is what differentiates Microsoft from ordinary SaaS companies.

But Microsoft is also a source of AI cost risk. Microsoft Cloud gross margin fell to 66%, partly because of continued AI infrastructure investment and growing usage of AI products. Intelligent Cloud cost of revenue rose 47%, also affected by AI infrastructure investment and increased GitHub Copilot usage. In other words, Microsoft can generate revenue growth from AI, but the market will also ask whether this capex can eventually produce sufficiently high returns. If AI investment continues to compress gross margins and free cash flow, Microsoft’s defensive-anchor role may weaken.

Microsoft risk indicators to watch include:

• Whether Azure growth remains high;
• Whether Microsoft Cloud gross margin continues to decline;
• Whether AI capex matches revenue growth;
• Whether Copilot paid seats and ARPU improve;
• Whether free cash flow remains compressed by AI infrastructure;
• Whether the market values Microsoft as a platform-software company or re-rates it as a high-capex cloud infrastructure company.

Summary: Microsoft plays a dual role in IGV. It is the fund’s quality anchor because of its cloud, enterprise software, developer ecosystem, and AI platform strength. At the same time, it is a source of AI cost risk because infrastructure investment affects margins, free cash flow, and valuation multiples. To judge Microsoft’s contribution to IGV, do not look only at Azure growth. Watch Copilot paid adoption, cloud gross margin, capex returns, and the recovery path for free cash flow. If Microsoft proves that AI investment can generate high-quality platform revenue, IGV benefits. If the market worries about inadequate investment returns, IGV can also be dragged down.

How Are Salesforce and ServiceNow’s AI Risks Different?

Salesforce and ServiceNow are both affected by changes in AI-related enterprise budgets, but their risks are different. For Salesforce, the key question is whether AI can protect and increase the paid value of CRM, data platforms, Slack, and Agentforce. For ServiceNow, the question is whether enterprises will continue handing cross-department workflows, IT service management, and AI agent orchestration to a platform software provider. Both are application software companies, but one is closer to customer relationship, sales, and service entry points, while the other is closer to the enterprise process control layer.

Salesforce’s risk comes from a revaluation of the traditional enterprise application model. According to Salesforce FY27 Q1 results, Agentforce and Data 360 ARR approached $3.4 billion, growing more than 200% year over year. The company also said that organic revenue growth was expected to accelerate in the second half, driven by Sales, Service, Slack, Agentforce, and Data 360. Earlier, Salesforce FY26 Q4 results said the company had completed more than 29,000 Agentforce deals since launch, up 50% quarter over quarter. These data points show that Salesforce is pushing AI from product narrative toward transactions and ARR.

The issue is that Salesforce’s core model remains closely tied to enterprise application budgets, seat expansion, and customer renewals. AI-native tools may replace parts of sales, customer service, marketing, and internal automation workflows. Enterprises may also reduce underused CRM seats and demand that vendors prove AI features improve efficiency. If Agentforce cannot be priced separately, or if it does not improve ARPU, renewal rates, and customer expansion, the market may still treat Salesforce as a representative example of traditional SaaS being re-rated by AI.

ServiceNow’s opportunity is more tied to AI workflow adoption. According to ServiceNow Q1 2026 results, subscription revenue was $3.671 billion, up 22% year over year, while current remaining performance obligations were $12.64 billion, up 22.5%. ServiceNow’s products are deeply embedded in IT service management, customer service, HR, operations workflows, and enterprise automation. If enterprises want to move AI from pilots into daily operations, workflow orchestration and control layers may become necessary software spending.

ServiceNow’s risks are also significant. First, its valuation is high and therefore more sensitive to slowing growth. Second, longer large-enterprise IT project cycles can affect subscriptions and cRPO. Third, if enterprises build their own agent orchestration layers, ServiceNow’s platform pricing power needs to be proven. Fourth, if AI projects remain stuck in pilot mode, workflow expansion may be delayed. As a result, ServiceNow looks more like an “AI adoption layer beneficiary” than Salesforce, but it still needs to prove the story through subscription revenue, cRPO, net revenue retention, and AI revenue.

Summary: Salesforce and ServiceNow’s AI risks should not be grouped together. Salesforce faces more pressure from whether traditional enterprise applications and seat-based models are being rewritten by AI. The key tests are whether Agentforce, Data 360, Slack, and CRM can drive higher paid adoption, renewals, and ARPU. ServiceNow’s opportunity is more tied to AI workflow adoption and enterprise process orchestration. The key tests are subscription revenue, cRPO, NRR, and AI automation revenue. Both companies must prove that AI can create paid features and stronger customer expansion; otherwise, high valuations may still compress.

Why Is Oracle Both an AI Cloud Opportunity and a Free Cash Flow Pressure Source in IGV?

Oracle is not an ordinary traditional software stock within IGV. It is a hybrid of databases, enterprise software, cloud infrastructure, and AI contracts. It can give IGV AI cloud growth upside, but it also brings capex and free cash flow pressure. If the market focuses on OCI growth, Oracle supports IGV. If the market worries about capex payback periods, Oracle becomes a risk source. You cannot understand Oracle by labeling it only as a “software company.”

Oracle’s AI cloud opportunity is clear. Oracle FY2026 results showed full-year Cloud Infrastructure IaaS revenue of $18.1 billion, up 77% year over year; full-year cloud revenue of $34.0 billion, up 39%; and RPO of $638.0 billion, up 363%. These figures show that Oracle is shifting from a database and enterprise software company toward a growth model driven by both AI cloud infrastructure and cloud applications. For IGV, Oracle provides stronger AI cloud exposure than traditional SaaS names.

But Oracle’s cash flow pressure is also substantial. The same results disclosed FY2026 operating cash flow of $32.0 billion and free cash flow of negative $23.7 billion, as the company continued investing in Cloud Infrastructure growth. Oracle also noted that it raised $43.0 billion in debt financing and $5.0 billion in equity financing in FY2026, and that it expected to raise about $40.0 billion through debt and equity financing in FY2027. For a software ETF, this means Oracle’s weight increases growth optionality while also introducing higher capital intensity and capital structure risk.

The difference between Oracle and Microsoft is also important. Microsoft combines platform software, enterprise subscriptions, cloud platforms, and an AI assistant ecosystem. Oracle is more a combination of database moat, OCI expansion, cloud applications, and large-scale AI contracts. Microsoft’s risk is mainly that AI investment compresses cloud gross margin and free cash flow. Oracle’s risk goes one step further: it must prove not only OCI growth, but also that large-scale data center investment, financing costs, and customer contracts can generate sufficiently high capital returns.

Oracle’s risk transmits into IGV through two paths. The opportunity path is continued upside in OCI growth, AI customer contracts converting into revenue, database and enterprise application customers migrating to Oracle Cloud, and cloud applications plus database stickiness supporting long-term profit. The risk path is slower-than-expected RPO conversion, continued data center capex increases, weaker-than-expected free cash flow recovery, rising financing costs, and market concerns around customer concentration or cloud gross margin.

Summary: Oracle’s role in IGV is more complex than that of ordinary SaaS companies. It is both a beneficiary of AI cloud infrastructure expansion and a representative of high capex and negative free cash flow. To judge whether Oracle supports or drags on IGV, focus on OCI growth, RPO conversion, free cash flow recovery, and cloud investment returns, rather than simply asking whether Oracle is a “software company.” When markets chase AI cloud revenue, Oracle can increase IGV’s growth optionality. When markets shift back toward cash-flow quality and capital-structure risk, Oracle can also amplify IGV’s volatility.

How Should You Combine Holdings Weight, AI Risk, and Trading Costs Before Investing in IGV?

Before investing in IGV, you need to evaluate holdings weight, AI risk, and trading costs together. Weight determines how much one company can influence the ETF. AI risk determines whether software valuations are being re-rated. Trading costs determine actual net returns. Looking only at IGV’s top-ten holdings is not enough to decide whether it fits your portfolio. A more useful approach is to break the fund down into three layers: weight, business type, and financial quality.

At the weight layer, look at whether high-weight companies such as Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, ServiceNow, Palo Alto Networks, Palantir, and CrowdStrike fit your view. At the business layer, examine how AI affects systems software, application software, cybersecurity, data platforms, and enterprise workflows differently. At the financial layer, monitor revenue growth, RPO, ARR, gross margin, free cash flow, stock-based compensation, and capex. Only after combining these three layers can you decide whether IGV is an oversold software basket or still a high-beta asset undergoing valuation compression.

IGV also has fund-level metrics that matter. As of July 20, 2026, iShares reported that IGV’s 30-day median bid-ask spread was 0.02%. As of June 30, 2026, its three-year standard deviation was 26.69%, its three-year beta was 1.31, and its expense ratio was 0.39%. These data show that IGV is not a low-volatility defensive asset. It is an ETF with high software-sector concentration and sensitivity to growth-stock sentiment and interest-rate changes. If you need low-volatility cash-flow assets, IGV is not a substitute.

Trading costs also need to be part of the decision. ETF costs include not only the fund expense ratio, but also commissions, platform fees, external agency fees, bid-ask spreads, FX costs, and order execution. If you follow IGV, Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, ServiceNow, and other U.S. stocks and ETFs, you can use Biya to track multi-asset market activity across U.S. stocks, Hong Kong stocks, and cryptocurrencies. Biya charges $0 commission for U.S. stock trading, while platform fees, external agency fees, and other charges are subject to the U.S. stock trading fees and the order confirmation page. Service availability depends on your location, identity verification results, platform rules, and applicable laws and regulations.

Summary: IGV analysis cannot stop at the question “what are the holdings?” You need to evaluate weight concentration, software subsectors, AI risk, earnings quality, expense ratio, and trading costs together. Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, and ServiceNow are only key entry points. What really determines whether IGV fits you is whether the fund’s overall exposure matches your view on the software sector, the AI application layer, and your risk tolerance. If you believe software can regain budget priority after the AI infrastructure cycle, IGV is a targeted tool. If you are more bullish on chips and data centers, IGV is not the most direct instrument.

Tracking IGV’s holdings is not just about static weights. You also need to follow real-time prices, earnings dates, trading costs, and risk changes. You can use U.S. stock information lookup to follow basic information on IGV, Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, ServiceNow, Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and other U.S. stocks and ETFs. You can also download the App to monitor related market developments. The content above introduces only public market information, fund structure, industry logic, and fee structure. It does not constitute investment advice. Before trading, review fund documents, order confirmations, fee details, FX costs, and locally applicable rules, and make decisions based on your own risk tolerance.

FAQ

What Are the Top Ten Holdings of the IGV ETF?

IGV’s top ten holdings change with fund disclosures. In the latest holdings, Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, ServiceNow, and AppLovin are important weighted positions, while Palo Alto Networks, Palantir, CrowdStrike, Fortinet, and Adobe are also often among higher-weight holdings. The actual list should be checked against the latest iShares holdings.

Why Does Microsoft Have the Highest Weight in IGV?

Microsoft has the highest weight in IGV mainly because it combines systems software, cloud platforms, enterprise subscriptions, and AI application-layer exposure. It strengthens IGV’s quality factor, while also transmitting Azure, Copilot, AI capex, and cloud gross margin risks into the fund’s performance.

What AI Risks Does Salesforce Face Within IGV?

Salesforce’s AI risk mainly comes from whether traditional CRM seat-based models and enterprise application budgets are being revalued by AI-native tools. If Agentforce, Data 360, and Slack cannot drive clear paid conversion, renewals, and ARPU improvement, valuation pressure may continue.

How Does Oracle’s Weight Affect IGV Volatility?

Oracle increases IGV’s sensitivity to AI cloud infrastructure. OCI growth and AI contracts can improve growth optionality, but high capex, negative free cash flow, debt, and uncertain cloud investment returns can also amplify fund volatility.

What Does ServiceNow Mean for IGV’s AI Theme?

ServiceNow represents IGV’s exposure to enterprise workflows and AI automation. If enterprises move AI from pilots into operating processes, ServiceNow may benefit. But if enterprise IT projects are delayed or valuation is too high, the risk will also show up in the fund.

What Should Beginners Look at First When Reviewing IGV Holdings?

Beginners reviewing IGV holdings should first look at the top-ten weights, industry exposure, and fund expenses, then examine earnings reports from key companies such as Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, and ServiceNow. Do not focus only on single-stock price moves; combine ETF-level volatility with your own risk tolerance.