The iShares S&P 500 Information Technology Sector UCITS ETF (IITU London / QDVE Xetra, ISIN IE00B3WJKG14) is the purist’s tech fund: not “companies that happen to list on the Nasdaq,” but the official GICS Information Technology sector of the S&P 500 — currently ~€16 billion of European money betting specifically on American technology. At 0.15% it’s also half the price of the Nasdaq-100 route to a similar destination.
This is the most concentrated fund I cover outside single-theme products, and the capping mechanism in its index (35/20) exists precisely because the sector outgrew normal index rules. Here’s what you’re really buying, verified against iShares and justETF in August 2026.
IITU key facts
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| ISIN | IE00B3WJKG14 (IITU London · QDVE Xetra) |
| TER | 0.15% per year |
| Index | S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Information Technology |
| Replication | Physical |
| Domicile | Ireland (UCITS) |
| Use of income | Accumulating |
| Fund size | ~€16bn (Aug 2026) |
What “35/20 capped” means — and why it exists
The raw S&P 500 IT sector is so top-heavy that an uncapped fund would breach UCITS diversification law. So the index caps the largest holding at 35% and every other at 20% at rebalance. Translation: three companies — the Apple/Microsoft/Nvidia tier — are most of this fund, capped only barely below the legal maximum. This is a feature disclosure, not a criticism: you’re buying exactly that concentration, knowingly.
For the bigger picture, start with our all-world ETF comparison hub.
Related: my L&G AI pure-play review covers this in depth.
What’s in — and the famous names that aren’t
GICS Information Technology means: software, semiconductors, hardware, IT services — Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Broadcom, Oracle, Salesforce, Cisco, Adobe, AMD. The surprises are the exclusions: Amazon (Consumer Discretionary), Alphabet and Meta (Communication Services), Tesla (Consumer Discretionary). If your mental model of “tech” includes the platform giants, this fund doesn’t match it — the Nasdaq-100 (CNDX) does. If your model is “the companies that build computing itself,” IITU is the cleaner expression, sitting between CNDX’s platform basket and SMH’s pure chip play.
Comparing UCITS funds? Take the decision workbook with you.
The ETF Comparison Workbook: TER, domicile, withholding and overlap checks in one printable spreadsheet.
IITU vs CNDX vs SMH: choosing your tech instrument
| IITU | CNDX | SMH | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | GICS IT sector | Nasdaq’s top 100 non-financials | Semiconductor industry |
| TER | 0.15% | 0.30% | 0.35% |
| Amazon/Alphabet/Meta? | No | Yes | No |
| Breadth | ~65–70 stocks | 100 | ~25 |
| Concentration | Extreme (35/20 caps) | High | Extreme |
Rule of thumb: platforms → CNDX; the computing stack → IITU; the silicon layer → SMH. Owning two of the three doubles the overlap without doubling the idea — pick the definition that matches your actual thesis and stop there.
Taxes and buying
Irish accumulating standard: 15% internal US withholding, no annual declarations in most EU states until sale, DE/AT/NL specifics as usual (UCITS guide, calculator). QDVE on Xetra trades in euros and is a savings-plan staple at German neobrokers (setup); dividend yield is near-zero — growth is the whole game.
Risks, stated like an adult
- Three-stock dependence: the capped trio drives most outcomes; single-company news is fund-level news.
- Drawdown profile: sector history includes 40–80% collapses (2000–02 remains the reference case). Plan for 40%+ as normal, not exceptional.
- Valuation regime: the sector trades on AI-era expectations; a digestion phase repricing hits IITU harder than the broad market.
- Overlap arithmetic: a world or S&P 500 core already holds this fund’s giants at full market weight — IITU on top is a deliberate doubling.
Portfolio fit and the worked math
IITU is a tilt instrument: 5–15% of equities for an investor who wants technology overweighted beyond its already-large index presence. On €50,000, a 10% sleeve costs €7.50/year in fees — the cheapest concentrated tech access in Europe. The behavioral price is the real one: that sleeve will at some point halve, and the plan you write today (hold? add on schedule?) determines whether the tilt compounds or gets sold at the bottom. Rebalance annually — winning tech sleeves quietly take over portfolios, which is how investors end up with 40% tech without ever deciding to.
What to watch through 2026–2027
Hyperscaler capex and AI monetization — the earnings engine of the top three. GICS reshuffles — sector reclassifications (like past moves of internet names) can transplant companies in or out overnight; holders needn’t act but should understand weight jumps. The cap mechanics — in strong runs the 35% cap binds and forces trims at rebalance; slight drag in momentum phases, protection in reversals.
Verdict
The best-priced, cleanest-defined US technology sector fund available to Europeans — and among the most concentrated things a sensible investor can hold. As a conscious 5–15% tilt on top of an honest core it’s an excellent instrument; as a portfolio centerpiece it’s a leveraged bet wearing an index costume. Decide which investor you are first — the satellite framework applies here word for word.
Common mistakes with sector investing
- Sector-hopping on narrative. The rotation cycle — buy tech after it ran, rotate to energy after it ran — is retail’s most reliable underperformance machine. A sector fund earns its place only inside a written allocation with a rebalancing rule, never as this quarter’s idea.
- Missing the classification fine print. Buying IITU “for tech” while assuming Amazon and Alphabet are inside is the definitional error covered above — read the GICS boundaries before wiring money at them.
- Stacking definitions: IITU + CNDX + SMH owns the same silicon-to-software stack three times. One definition, chosen to match your actual thesis, is the whole discipline.
- Letting winners dissolve the plan. A 10% tech sleeve that grows to 25% has silently rewritten your risk profile. The annual rebalance isn’t optional maintenance — for concentrated sleeves it is the strategy.
The 35/20 cap in practice: your quiet risk manager
The capping rule deserves more attention than a footnote. In strong mega-cap runs, the largest holding grows past 35% between rebalances and gets trimmed back — mechanically selling a slice of the winner into strength. In reversals, the cap means the fund entered the drawdown less top-heavy than the raw sector was. Net effect over full cycles: slightly less momentum capture on the way up, meaningfully less single-stock catastrophe risk on the way down — a trade most long-term holders should welcome in an index whose top name would otherwise approach half the fund. It also means IITU’s returns can visibly diverge from “the tech sector” headlines in the biggest single-name years; when that happens, the cap — not tracking failure — is usually the explanation.
Where IITU fits among this site’s tech coverage
Think of the stack in layers. Bottom — the silicon: SMH, ~25 names, purest cyclicality, the AI build-out’s tollbooth. Middle — the computing industry: IITU, the full GICS stack from chips through software at half the Nasdaq fund’s fee. Top — the platforms: CNDX, adding the consumer-facing giants GICS files elsewhere. Risk and specificity rise as you descend; breadth rises as you climb. A portfolio needs at most one of these layers as a tilt — sized 5–15%, rebalanced annually, chosen because its definition matches the sentence you’d use to explain your thesis to a friend. If you can’t produce that sentence, the honest conclusion is that your world fund already owns enough technology — at market weight, fee-free of tilts, and immune to definitional regret.
Reader scenarios
“Tech is the future — why not 50% IITU?” Because “the future” and “your returns” connect through the price paid. Tech being transformative was equally true in March 2000 — buyers then waited fifteen years to break even on the sector. A 5–15% tilt captures the thesis while a repricing stays survivable; 50% makes your retirement a single sector’s valuation cycle.
“IITU dropped 8% this month while the news says tech is booming — why?” Check the top three first: with the 35/20 concentration, one giant’s earnings wobble moves the fund regardless of the sector’s health. You bought concentrated exposure; weeks like that are the exposure.
“QDVE is in my broker’s savings-plan promo at zero fees — catch?” None — promo execution on a 0.15% fund is a genuinely good deal. Just confirm the plan buys QDVE (this fund) and not a similarly-named product, and remember free execution doesn’t change the sizing discipline.
“Should I rotate IITU profits into cheaper sectors?” That’s sector rotation — a strategy with a famously poor retail track record. The disciplined version already exists in your plan: the annual rebalance trims the winner back to target mechanically, no narrative required.
Sector funds vs factor funds vs themes: placing IITU on the map
Investors meet three families of “tilt” products and often blur them. Sector funds (IITU) slice the market by GICS business classification — transparent, rules-based, cheap, and as concentrated as the sector happens to be. Factor funds (quality, momentum, value) slice by statistical characteristics across all sectors — diversified by industry but dependent on academic premia showing up. Thematic funds (the VanEck shelf) chase narratives across classification lines — highest fees, purest story exposure. IITU is the first family at its best: no story premium, no factor faith, just the market’s own definition of an industry at index pricing. If your conviction is specifically “American technology companies will out-earn the market,” this is the cleanest, cheapest sentence-to-instrument match available — which is exactly what a tilt should be: a written thesis, one matching product, one annual review. Anything fuzzier belongs back in the world fund.
One paragraph for three investor types
The thesis-driven tilter: if your sentence is “American technology out-earns the market for another decade,” IITU is its cheapest faithful expression — write the sentence down, size it 5–15%, review annually. The accidental concentrator: if tech already dominates your portfolio through a world fund plus Nasdaq plus single stocks, this fund is the one to skip — subtraction, not addition, is your next optimization. The cycle-aware accumulator: a modest monthly plan into QDVE that you commit to doubling during sector drawdowns is the configuration that has historically turned this index’s brutal volatility into an asset instead of a test.
Related concentration reading: how this sector fund fits the Mag-7 exposure question — and every honest route Europeans actually have — is mapped in the Magnificent 7 ETF guide.
The sector shelf’s other seat: the healthcare slice — defensive-growth paradox, GLP-1 era and policy discount included — is reviewed in the S&P 500 Health Care (IUHC) guide.
The narrower slice: pure software and cloud — the PRIIPs-blocked US product, its UCITS substitute, and the AI question inside the business model — is examined in the software and cloud ETF guide.
The broader sector route: the whole US information technology sector at 0.12%, and why VGT itself is unavailable in Europe, is covered in the US tech sector guide.
Frequently asked questions
Why doesn’t IITU hold Amazon, Alphabet or Meta?
GICS classifies them outside Information Technology (Consumer Discretionary and Communication Services). For those names in a tech-heavy fund, the Nasdaq-100 is the vehicle.
IITU or QDVE — what’s the difference?
None — same fund, same ISIN; IITU is the London USD line, QDVE the Xetra euro line German savings plans use.
Is 0.15% cheap for a sector fund?
Very — sector UCITS funds typically run 0.25–0.50%. IITU’s scale bought its price down.
Does IITU pay dividends?
It accumulates, and the sector pays almost nothing anyway — income investors are structurally elsewhere (see TDIV).
How much overlap with an S&P 500 fund?
Total — every IITU holding is inside the S&P 500 at ~30%+ combined weight. IITU exists to increase that weight deliberately, not to add new companies.
How often do the 35/20 caps actually bind?
Whenever the largest names outrun the pack — a recurring event in recent years. Rebalances then trim leaders back within limits. The caps make the fund slightly anti-momentum at the top, which is the price of UCITS-legal concentration.
Could GICS reclassify the sector’s giants out of the fund?
Reclassifications happen — 2018 moved major internet names out of IT. There is no current indication for the semiconductor tier, but holders should know sector definitions are maintained, not immutable; a reshuffle changes the fund overnight without any fund-level failure.
Is IITU available as a distributing fund?
The flagship accumulates and the sector’s near-zero yield makes distribution mostly symbolic — a Dist class would pay pennies. Income-focused investors simply have no business in this sector fund; that is a feature of the sector, not the wrapper.
Cited sources: iShares fund data, justETF data, and S&P Dow Jones Indices methodology. Verify current fund figures before investing. Educational content, not financial advice.
European UCITS/ETF investor with 11+ years building a global dividend and index portfolio, and founder of Financial Expert Class. I write every guide here from first-hand experience investing across EU brokers and tax regimes — not theory. More about me →