The U.S. ETF industry enjoyed strong inflows over the course of the first nine months of 2026. Nevertheless, this period was defined by a combination of geopolitical tensions, shifting fiscal priorities, and diverging monetary policies. Investors entered the year expecting a relatively stable environment supported by easing inflation and accommodative central banks. Instead, markets faced a more challenging backdrop shaped by energy security concerns, trade fragmentation, and renewed inflationary pressures
Geopolitics became a central market driver. Escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly involving Iran, created recurring concerns about energy supplies and global shipping routes. These developments revived fears that higher energy costs could reignite inflation and slow economic growth. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine continued to influence European security policy and reinforced the trend toward higher defence spending across the continent.
Global trade remained another key theme. The strategic rivalry between the United States and China continued to reshape supply chains and investment decisions. While both countries sought to avoid a return to full-scale tariff escalation, businesses continued diversifying production networks and reducing dependence on individual markets. Governments increasingly promoted industrial resilience and domestic production, accelerating longer-term shifts in global trade patterns.
Fiscal policy provided important support for economic activity. Across Europe, governments increased spending on defense, infrastructure, and strategic industries in response to a more uncertain geopolitical environment. Public investment helped offset weaker external demand and contributed to economic resilience. Similar initiatives were evident in other developed economies as policymakers sought to strengthen energy security, technological competitiveness, and supply chain independence.
Equity markets were driven by a balance between structural growth opportunities and macroeconomic uncertainty. Investment linked to artificial intelligence, semiconductors, data centers, and digital infrastructure remained a powerful theme throughout the period. Strong demand for technological innovation continued to attract capital despite concerns surrounding inflation, energy prices, and geopolitical risks. At the same time, market leadership frequently rotated as investors adjusted expectations for growth and monetary policy.
The most significant development for financial markets was the growing divergence among major central banks. Rather than moving in a coordinated direction, policymakers increasingly responded to domestic economic conditions, creating different policy paths across regions.
The European Central Bank (ECB) adopted a more hawkish stance as inflation pressures proved more persistent than expected. In September, the ECB raised interest rates, citing inflation risks linked to the Middle East conflict and reaffirming its commitment to restoring price stability. Policymakers acknowledged economic resilience while highlighting continuing uncertainty surrounding both growth and inflation.
The Federal Reserve also moved toward tighter policy. After maintaining a cautious approach for much of the year, the Fed raised interest rates in September, pointing to resilient domestic demand and insufficient progress in returning inflation to target. The decision reflected a growing concern that inflation risks remained elevated despite a healthy economic backdrop.
Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan continued its gradual policy normalization, prompting investors to reassess long-standing funding and carry-trade strategies. The Bank of England, by contrast, maintained a more balanced approach as it sought to manage inflation risks while supporting a slowing economy.
Bond markets reflected these changing expectations. Investors focused increasingly on inflation risks, fiscal sustainability and central-bank credibility. Hopes for synchronized global monetary easing faded, replaced by a more selective assessment of regional opportunities and risks.
By the end of September, financial markets were operating in an environment defined by policy divergence, geopolitical uncertainty, and economic resilience. Energy shocks, strategic competition, fiscal activism, and independent central bank actions shaped investor sentiment throughout the first three quarters, setting the stage for an equally challenging final quarter of 2026.
Assets Under Management in the U.S. ETF Industry
From a U.S. ETF industry perspective, the performance of the underlying markets led, in combination with the estimated net flows, to increasing assets under management (from $13,475.2 bn as of December 31, 2025, to $16,296.6 bn at the end of September 2026). At a closer look, the increase in assets under management of $2,821.4 bn for the first nine months of 2026 was driven by estimated net inflows (+$1,524.6 bn), while the performance of the underlying markets added ($1,296.8 bn) to the growth of the assets under management.
Graph 1: Assets Under Management in the U.S. ETF Industry, December 31, 2025 – September 30, 2026 (in bn USD)
Source: LSEG Lipper
As for the overall structure of the U.S. ETF industry, it was not surprising equity ETFs ($12,581.5 bn) held the majority of assets, followed by bond ETFs ($2,640.7 bn), alternatives ETFs ($664.1 bn), commodities ETFs ($341.6 bn), mixed-assets ETFs ($42.1 bn), and money market ETFs ($26.6 bn).
Graph 2: Market Share, Assets Under Management in the U.S. ETF Industry by Asset Type, September 30, 2026
Source: LSEG Lipper
Given the volatile market environment over the course of the month, it was somewhat surprising that the overall assets under management in the U.S. ETF industry hit a new (month end) all-time high at the end of September 2026. When it comes to this, it is noteworthy that the assets under management for alternatives, equities, mixed-assets, and money market ETFs reached a new (month end) all-time high at the end of September.
ETF Flows by Asset Type
The U.S. ETF industry saw strong inflows (+$1,524.6 bn) over the course of the first nine months of 2026. The flow pattern over the course of the first quarter shows that the inflows into ETFs slowed down as the geopolitical tensions in the Middle East intensified over the course of March and returned to a high level from April onwards. That said, the inflows marked a new record for monthly inflows over the course of June (+$206.1 bn) and returned to a more moderate flow pattern in Q3 2026. With regard to this, it is noteworthy that September (+$139.6 bn) was the month with the second lowest inflows for the year so far.
When it comes to this, it is noteworthy that the estimated net inflows for 2026 so far have already surpassed the full year inflows of the record year 2025 when the U.S. ETF industry enjoyed estimated net inflows of $1,476.9 bn.
Graph 3: Monthly Estimated Net Sales, January 1, 2026 – September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The already impressive estimated net flows for February (+$191.1 bn) and May (+$189.8 bn) were topped by the inflows in June (+$206.1 bn). To put this into perspective, the inflows into ETFs over the course of February and June 2026 were each higher than the full-year inflows into ETFs over the course of 2013 (+$190.1 bn).
The inflows in the U.S. ETF industry over the course of the first nine months of 2026 (+$1,524.6 bn overall) were driven by equity ETFs (+$936.2 bn), followed by bond ETFs (+$467.7 bn), alternatives ETFs (+$77.1 bn), money market ETFs (+$21.1 bn), commodities ETFs (+$11.4 bn), and mixed-assets ETFs (+$11.0 bn).
Graph 4: Estimated Net Sales by Asset Type, January 1 – September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
Given the volatile market environment, it was somewhat surprising to see that equity ETFs enjoyed by far the highest estimated net inflows over the course of the first nine months of 2026. That said, money market ETFs saw lower than expected estimated net inflows despite their status as safe-haven products. This might be seen as proof that money market is so far not a core asset type in the U.S. ETF industry.
As graph 5 shows, bond and equity ETFs enjoyed inflows in each of the nine months of 2026 so far. The graph also shows that the inflows in bond ETFs were somewhat more stable as those for equity ETFs. That said, both asset types showed a slowdown of the inflows March. While the flows for equity ETFs returned to their elevated level from April onwards. Conversely, the inflows into bond ETFs slowed further down in April before returning to a stable pattern on the same level as before the slowdown from May onwards. The slowdown in March was mainly driven by the start of the war in the Middle East. Nevertheless, the flows in equity ETFs stayed positive, which once again showed the resilience of ETF flows in times of market turmoil. This might be seen as a sign that U.S. investors like the liquidity, tradability, and transparency of ETFs, especially in times when markets are rough.
Graph 5: Monthly Estimated Net Sales by Asset Type, January 1, 2026 – June 30, 2026 (USD billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
These flows showed that the adoption of ETFs by all kind of investors is further increasing in the U.S. despite the fact that these products are already household products and used by a large percentage of U.S. investors.
Assets Under Management by Management Approach
A quick view of the assets under management of actively managed ETFs ($2,350.6 bn or 14.42% of the overall assets under management in the U.S. ETF industry) at the end of September 2026 shows that actively managed ETFs have become a staple in the portfolios of U.S. investors. In fact, the assets under management in actively managed ETFs grew by $712.3 over the course of the first nine months of 2026, as the AUM stood at $1,638.3 bn at the end of December 2025. In other words, this means the assets under management in actively managed ETFs grew by 43.48% over 2026 so far, which means these products are a true growth driver for the U.S. ETF industry.
Graph 6: Assets Under Management in the U.S. ETF Industry by Management Approach, December 31, 2025, and September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
That said, the assets under management for passive ETFs stood at $13,948.0 bn, or 85.58%, of the overall assets under management in the U.S. ETF industry at the end of September. The AUM in passive ETFs grew by $2,100.4 bn, or 17.73%, over the course of the year so far, since the assets under management stood at $11,847.6 bn at the end of December 2025.
Comparing these numbers shows that the segment of actively managed ETFs is growing much faster than the segment of passive ETFs, which underlines the fact that actively managed ETFs are an overall growth driver for the U.S. ETF industry despite the fact that their absolute growth numbers are still much smaller than those for passive ETFs.
Estimated Net Flows by Management Approach
The inflows into the U.S. ETF industry by management approach obviously follow the same pattern as the overall estimated net flows. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to analyze the estimated net flows by management approach to determine if actively managed ETFs are a real growth segment in the U.S. ETF industry, or if the growth in assets under management for this market segment has mainly been driven by the performance of the underlying markets.
Actively managed ETFs were able to gather $538.4 bn, or 35.27%, of the overall estimated net flows in the U.S. ETF industry over the course of the first nine months of 2026. This means that the market share of the fund flows for actively managed ETFs is much higher than their market share of the assets under management, hence the segment of actively managed ETFS is a real growth segment.
Passive ETFs gathered $988.2 bn, or 64.73%, of the overall estimated net flows into ETFs in the U.S. over the course of 2026 so far. This means that passive ETFs are the product of choice for European investors, while actively managed ETFs are growing at a fast pace.
Graph 7: Monthly Estimated Net Sales by Management Approach, January 1 – September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The monthly flow pattern might be seen as a sign that the inflows into actively managed ETFs are as resilient to market turmoil as the inflows into passive ETFs. That said, since we haven’t witnessed a real market correction yet, actively managed ETFs need to prove their resilience when it comes to fund flows during rough market conditions in the future.
Assets Under Management by Lipper Global Classifications
In order to examine the U.S. ETF markets in further detail, a review of the Lipper global classifications will lead to more insights on the structure and concentration of assets within the U.S. ETF industry. At the end of September 2026, the U.S. ETF market was split into 137 different Lipper global classifications. The highest assets under management at the end of September were held by funds classified as Equity U.S. ($6,929.6 bn), followed by Equity Global ex U.S. ($1,321.7 bn), Equity U.S. Small & Mid Cap ($1,140.8 bn), Equity Sector Information Technology ($689.3 bn), and Bond USD Medium Term ($650.4 bn). These five classifications accounted for 65.85% of the overall assets under management in the U.S. ETF segment, while the 10-top classifications by assets under management accounted for 78.09%.
Overall, 16 of the 137 peer groups each accounted for more than 1% of assets under management. In total, these 16 peer groups accounted for $13,901.4 bn, or 85.30%, of the overall assets under management.
Graph 8: Ten Largest Lipper Global Classifications by Assets Under Management, September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
In addition, it was noteworthy that the rankings of the largest classifications saw some movement in single positions over the last few years. As the positions of the classifications had been quite stable in the past, this indicates that U.S. investors use ETFs to trade according to their market views. Even as some of these positions might be core holdings, once investors got into risk-off mode they also reduced their exposure to core asset classes.
Despite the fact that the rankings at the top of the table show some changes from time to time, these numbers show that the assets under management by Lipper global classifications continued to be highly concentrated in the U.S. ETF industry.
The peer groups on the other side of the table showed some ETFs in the U.S. ETF market are quite low in assets and their constituents may face the risk of being closed in the near future. They are obviously lacking investor interest and might, therefore, not be profitable for their respective ETF promoters.
Graph 9: Ten Smallest Lipper Global Classifications by Assets Under Management, September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
ETF Flows by Lipper Global Classifications
The net inflows of the 10 best-selling Lipper classifications accounted for $1,119.2 bn. In line with the overall sales trend for 2026 so far, equity peer groups (+$806.7 bn) led the flows by asset type on the table of the 10 best-selling Lipper global classifications by estimated net inflows. That said, it was not surprising to see that the table of the 10 best-selling classifications for the month was led by bond classifications as there were also six equity, three bond, and one alternatives classifications on the table. When it comes to this, it was not surprising that Equity U.S. (+$419.6 bn) was the best-selling Lipper global classification for the first nine months of 2026, since U.S. investors are somewhat known for their home bias when it comes to their investments. Equity Global ex U.S. (+$150.3 bn) was the second best-selling classification, followed by Bond USD Medium Term (+$105.5 bn), Bond USD Government Short Term (+$83.9 bn), and Equity Sector Information Technology (+$82.5 bn).
Graph 10: Ten Best- and Worst-Lipper Global Classifications by Estimated Net Sales, January 1 – September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
More generally, these numbers showed the U.S. ETF segment is also highly concentrated when it comes to fund flows by classification—one would expect the flows into ETFs to be concentrated since investors often use ETFs to implement their market views and short-term asset allocation decisions. These products are made and, therefore, are easy to use for these purposes.
On the other side of the table, the 10 peer groups with the highest estimated net outflows for 2026 so far accounted for $38.3 bn in outflows.
Alternative Equity Leveraged (-$18.4 bn) was the Lipper classification with the highest outflows for the first nine months of 2026. It was bettered by Equity Sector Financials (-$3.6 bn), Equity India (-$3.2 bn), Equity Sector Communication Services (-$2.5 bn), and Equity China (-$2.5 bn).
A view of the list of the 10 Lipper global classifications with the highest estimated net outflows indicates that U.S. investors may have reduced the overall risk in their portfolios, as they sold ETFs investing in single equity sectors and non-core asset classes.
Assets Under Management by Promoters
A closer look at assets under management by promoters in the U.S. ETF industry also showed high concentration, with only 140 of the 517 ETF promoters in the U.S. holding assets at or above $1.0 bn, accounting for $16,217.2 bn. The largest ETF promoter in the U.S.—iShares ($4,648.9 bn)—accounted for 28.53% of the overall assets under management. Despite a comfortable lead as largest ETF promoter globally, iShares is closely followed by Vanguard ($4,625.1 bn), the number-two ETF promoter in the U.S. That said, the two largest ETF promoters in the U.S. have a comfortable lead over the number-three promoter—State Street SPDR ($2,126.0 bn).
Graph 11: The 10 Largest ETF Promoters by Assets Under Management, September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
When it comes to this, it is noteworthy that Vanguard had overtaken iShares as leading ETF promoter by assets under management during June but was not able to maintain that position until the end of the month. This shows that even the positions of the largest ETF promoters can become a subject of change over time.
The assets under management of the 10-top promoters accounted for $14,341.8 bn, or 88.00%, of the overall assets under management in the U.S. ETF industry. This meant, in turn, the other 507 ETF promoters registering at least one ETF for sale in the U.S. accounted for only 12.00% of the overall assets under management.
ETF Flows by Promoters
Since the U.S. ETF market is highly concentrated when it comes to assets under management by promoter, it was not surprising that eight of the 10 largest promoters by assets under management were among the 10-top selling ETF promoters for 2026 so far. Vanguard (+$386.2 bn) was the best-selling ETF promoter in the U.S. for the first nine months of 2026, ahead of iShares (+$317.1 bn) and State Street SPDR (+$124.0 bn).
Graph 12: Ten Best-Selling ETF Promoters, January 1 – September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The flows of the 10-top promoters accounted for estimated net inflows of $1,167.4 bn. As for the overall flow trend over the course of 2026 so far, it was clear that some of the 518 promoters (90) faced estimated net outflows (-$28.8 bn in total) over the course of the year so far.
Assets Under Management by ETFs
There were 5,688 instruments (primary share classes [5,598] and convenience share classes [90]) listed as ETFs registered for sales in the U.S. in the Lipper database at the end of September. Regarding the overall market pattern, it was not surprising assets under management at the ETF level were also highly concentrated. Only 1,054 of the 5,598 ETFs (primary share classes = portfolios) held assets more than $1.0 bn each. These ETFs accounted for $15,495.6 bn, or 95.08%, of the overall assets in the U.S. ETF industry. The 10 largest ETFs in the U.S. accounted for $4,924.8 bn, or 30.22%, of the overall assets under management.
Graph 13: The 10 Largest ETFs by Assets Under Management, September 30, 2026 (USD Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
With regard to assets under management at the ETF level, it is noteworthy that the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) has passed the $1.0 trn milestone for the first time at the beginning of June 2026, but the ETF could not hold that level over the course of the month, as the ETF faced outflows over the course of the month. Nevertheless, VOO reached and maintained the level above $1.0 trn from July and held $1,032.3 bn in assets under management at the end of September. To learn more about this, please read: Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) – The First ETF With More Than $1.0 trn in Assets Under Management.
Estimated Net Flows at ETF Level
A total of 4,278 of the 5,688 ETFs (primary share classes = portfolios) analyzed in this report showed net inflows of more than $10,000 each for September, accounting for inflows of $1,746.3 bn. This meant the other 1,410 instruments faced no flows, or net outflows, for the month. Upon closer inspection, 1,231 of the 4,278 ETFs posting net inflows enjoyed inflows of more than $100 m over the course of the first nine months of 2026—for a total of $1,680.3 bn. The best-selling ETF in the U.S. for 2026 so far was Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, which enjoyed estimated net inflows of $91.4 bn. It was followed by State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (+$60.9 bn) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (+$49.7 bn).
Graph 14: The 10 Best-Selling ETFs, September 1 – September 30, 2026 (Euro Billions)
Source: LSEG Lipper
The flow pattern at the fund level indicated there was a lot of turnover and rotation during the year so far, but it also showed the concentration of the U.S. ETF industry even better than the statistics at the promoter or classification levels since the 10 best-selling ETFs account for $399.2 bn, or 26.31%, of the overall inflows.
Given its size and the overall trend for net sales at the promoter level, it was surprising that only two of the 10 best-selling funds for September were issued by iShares, accounting for estimated net inflows of $73.7 bn. While, iShares’ main competitor Vanguard issued four of the 10 best-selling ETFs in the U.S., which accounted for estimated net inflows of $191.9 bn.
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute any investment advice.
The views expressed are the views of the author, not necessarily those of Lipper or LSEG.
