JEPI vs SCHG: 21% overlap
JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF share 20.5% 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 2 months apart — JEPI as of 2026-03-31, the rest through 2026-05-31. 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 1.8. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
JEPI and SCHG hold 32 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in JEPI | in SCHG | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 1.4% | 11.0% | 9.6% |
| AMZN | 1.4% | 5.7% | 4.3% |
| AAPL | 1.4% | 9.8% | 8.4% |
| GOOGL | 1.4% | 4.8% | 3.4% |
| MA | 1.4% | 1.4% | 0.1% |
| AVGO | 1.3% | 4.5% | 3.2% |
| V | 1.3% | 1.9% | 0.6% |
| MSFT | 1.3% | 7.2% | 5.9% |
| META | 1.2% | 3.5% | 2.3% |
| COST | 0.9% | 1.5% | 0.6% |
Where JEPI and SCHG 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 | JEPI | SCHG | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 13.5% | 46.1% | −32.6pp |
| Unclassified | 19.6% | 1.9% | +17.7pp |
| Communication Services | 5.2% | 14.7% | −9.6pp |
| Consumer Staples | 7.8% | 1.7% | +6.1pp |
| Utilities | 5.4% | 0.4% | +5.0pp |
| Health Care | 11.6% | 8.3% | +3.2pp |
| Industrials | 8.9% | 6.0% | +3.0pp |
| Energy | 3.3% | 0.7% | +2.6pp |
Δ is JEPI minus SCHG, 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
70.6% of JEPI by weight, held in no part of SCHG.
37.5% of SCHG by weight, held in no part of JEPI.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| JEPI | SCHG | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 15.7% | 57.2% |
| Positions held | 120 | 195 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $35 | $4 |
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 JEPI and SCHG overlap?
JEPI and SCHG overlap 20.5% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 32 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (JEPI as of 2026-03-31, SCHG as of 2026-05-31).
How is the overlap between JEPI and SCHG calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If JEPI holds a stock at 6% and SCHG 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 JEPI and SCHG?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 20.5% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does JEPI own that SCHG doesn't?
JEPI holds 120 positions and SCHG holds 195; 88 of JEPI's positions don't appear in SCHG at all, and they are 70.6% of JEPI by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares JEPI and SCHG. 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 JEPI vs SCHG
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, JEPI as of 2026-03-31, SCHG as of 2026-05-31. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.