JEPQ vs TSPC: 49% overlap
JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF and TSP C Fund — shown via S&P 500 proxy share 49.1% 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 3 months apart — JEPQ as of 2026-03-31, the rest through 2026-06-30. 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 1.5. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
JEPQ and TSPC hold 80 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in JEPQ | in TSPC | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 7.3% | 7.5% | 0.2% |
| AAPL | 6.4% | 6.6% | 0.2% |
| MSFT | 4.8% | 4.3% | 0.5% |
| AMZN | 4.0% | 3.6% | 0.4% |
| GOOG | 5.1% | 2.6% | 2.5% |
| AVGO | 2.2% | 2.8% | 0.5% |
| MU | 2.0% | 2.0% | 0.0% |
| META | 3.0% | 1.9% | 1.1% |
| TSLA | 2.6% | 1.8% | 0.8% |
| AMD | 1.7% | 1.5% | 0.2% |
Where JEPQ and TSPC 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 | JEPQ | TSPC | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified | 22.3% | 0.0% | +22.3pp |
| Financials | 0.5% | 11.6% | −11.1pp |
| Industrials | 1.7% | 8.9% | −7.2pp |
| Health Care | 4.2% | 8.9% | −4.7pp |
| Energy | 0.4% | 3.0% | −2.6pp |
| Communication Services | 12.0% | 9.7% | +2.3pp |
| Materials | 0.0% | 1.8% | −1.8pp |
| Consumer Staples | 6.3% | 4.6% | +1.8pp |
Δ is JEPQ minus TSPC, 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
22.8% of JEPQ by weight, held in no part of TSPC.
47.0% of TSPC by weight, held in no part of JEPQ.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| JEPQ | TSPC | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 40.0% | 36.4% |
| Positions held | 108 | 505 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $35 | $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 JEPQ and TSPC overlap?
JEPQ and TSPC overlap 49.1% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 80 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (JEPQ as of 2026-03-31, TSPC as of 2026-06-30).
How is the overlap between JEPQ and TSPC calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If JEPQ holds a stock at 6% and TSPC 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 JEPQ and TSPC?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 49.1% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does JEPQ own that TSPC doesn't?
JEPQ holds 108 positions and TSPC holds 505; 28 of JEPQ's positions don't appear in TSPC at all, and they are 22.8% of JEPQ by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares JEPQ and TSPC. 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 JEPQ vs TSPC
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, JEPQ as of 2026-03-31, TSPC as of 2026-06-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.