AGTHX vs IJH: 2% overlap
American Funds Growth Fund of America A and iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF share 2.3% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
Different holding dates. These holdings were published about 5 months apart — AGTHX as of 2026-02-28, the rest through 2026-07-23. Each fund is compared using its most recent file, so any trading in between shows up as a difference.
You would hold two tickers and get the diversification of 2.0. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
AGTHX and IJH hold 30 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in AGTHX | in IJH | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| BURL | 0.4% | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| ATI | 0.4% | 0.8% | 0.4% |
| FTI | 0.2% | 0.8% | 0.6% |
| XPO | 0.2% | 0.7% | 0.5% |
| TOST | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| ILMN | 0.1% | 0.8% | 0.7% |
| PFGC | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.4% |
| FND | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| DOCU | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| TOL | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
Where AGTHX and IJH differ
Sector weights as a share of each fund, ordered by the size of the gap rather than the size of the sector — two funds that overlap heavily still usually diverge somewhere.
| Sector | AGTHX | IJH | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 30.6% | 13.9% | +16.7pp |
| Industrials | 9.8% | 25.5% | −15.7pp |
| Communication Services | 13.2% | 1.5% | +11.7pp |
| Financials | 6.5% | 15.1% | −8.6pp |
| Unclassified | 7.6% | 0.0% | +7.6pp |
| Real Estate | 0.6% | 6.9% | −6.3pp |
| Materials | 1.5% | 5.5% | −3.9pp |
| Energy | 1.9% | 4.9% | −3.0pp |
Δ is AGTHX minus IJH, in percentage points. Sector data is not published by every issuer, so “Unclassified” is a real category rather than a gap in the table.
What each fund holds alone
96.5% of AGTHX by weight, held in no part of IJH.
88.2% of IJH by weight, held in no part of AGTHX.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| AGTHX | IJH | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 36.7% | 7.6% |
| Positions held | 309 | 404 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $61 | $5 |
Cost is the expense ratio applied to $10,000; it excludes any brokerage commission, bid-ask spread or tax consequence. Figures are facts about the funds, not a suggestion about which to hold.
Frequently asked
How much do AGTHX and IJH overlap?
AGTHX and IJH overlap 2.3% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 30 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (AGTHX as of 2026-02-28, IJH as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between AGTHX and IJH calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If AGTHX holds a stock at 6% and IJH holds the same stock at 4%, 4% counts as shared. The result is bounded between 0% and 100%, and it is computed after looking through any fund-of-funds to the underlying holdings.
Is it redundant to hold both AGTHX and IJH?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 2.3% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does AGTHX own that IJH doesn't?
AGTHX holds 309 positions and IJH holds 404; 278 of AGTHX's positions don't appear in IJH at all, and they are 96.5% of AGTHX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares AGTHX and IJH. Paste your whole portfolio — brokerage, 401(k), IRA — and see the overlap across every fund at once, plus what you actually own underneath them and your own Effective Funds number. Free, no account, nothing stored.
X-ray my portfolio — free →Watch AGTHX vs IJH
We re-read both funds’ published holdings every weeknight. Leave an address and we'll tell you when what's inside actually changes.
Not sending yet — email alerts are built but switched off, and you'll be among the first when they turn on. No spam, one-click unsubscribe.
Related comparisons
Sources: issuer holdings files, AGTHX as of 2026-02-28, IJH as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.