JEPQ vs XLC: 12% overlap
JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF and Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund share 12.2% 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 4 months apart — JEPQ as of 2026-03-31, 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 1.9. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
JEPQ and XLC hold 8 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in JEPQ | in XLC | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOOG | 5.1% | 8.1% | 3.0% |
| META | 3.0% | 18.5% | 15.5% |
| NFLX | 2.1% | 4.3% | 2.2% |
| TMUS | 0.9% | 4.5% | 3.7% |
| CMCSA | 0.6% | 4.2% | 3.6% |
| TTWO | 0.3% | 4.3% | 4.0% |
| CASH | 1.8% | 0.2% | 1.7% |
| CHTR | 0.1% | 2.0% | 1.9% |
Where JEPQ and XLC 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 | XLC | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication Services | 12.0% | 99.8% | −87.8pp |
| Information Technology | 37.9% | 0.0% | +37.9pp |
| Unclassified | 22.3% | 0.0% | +22.3pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 10.0% | 0.0% | +10.0pp |
| Consumer Staples | 6.3% | 0.0% | +6.3pp |
| Health Care | 4.2% | 0.0% | +4.2pp |
| Industrials | 1.7% | 0.0% | +1.7pp |
| Cash and/or Derivatives | 1.8% | 0.2% | +1.7pp |
Δ is JEPQ minus XLC, 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
84.6% of JEPQ by weight, held in no part of XLC.
53.9% of XLC 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 | XLC | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 40.0% | 68.6% |
| Positions held | 108 | 25 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $35 | $8 |
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 XLC overlap?
JEPQ and XLC overlap 12.2% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 8 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (JEPQ as of 2026-03-31, XLC as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between JEPQ and XLC 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 XLC 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 XLC?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 12.2% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does JEPQ own that XLC doesn't?
JEPQ holds 108 positions and XLC holds 25; 100 of JEPQ's positions don't appear in XLC at all, and they are 84.6% of JEPQ by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares JEPQ and XLC. 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 XLC
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, XLC as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.