QQQ vs VTIVX: 24% overlap
Invesco QQQ Trust and Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 share 24.0% 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 — VTIVX 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 1.8. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
QQQ and VTIVX hold 100 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in QQQ | in VTIVX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 8.3% | 3.0% | 5.3% |
| AAPL | 7.8% | 2.8% | 5.0% |
| MSFT | 4.7% | 1.8% | 2.8% |
| AMZN | 4.1% | 1.5% | 2.6% |
| GOOGL | 3.0% | 1.4% | 1.7% |
| AVGO | 3.1% | 1.2% | 1.9% |
| GOOG | 2.9% | 1.1% | 1.8% |
| MU | 5.1% | 0.9% | 4.2% |
| META | 3.0% | 0.8% | 2.1% |
| TSLA | 2.6% | 0.8% | 1.8% |
Where QQQ and VTIVX 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 | QQQ | VTIVX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 59.1% | 23.8% | +35.3pp |
| Financials | 0.2% | 13.3% | −13.1pp |
| Communication Services | 13.1% | 5.4% | +7.7pp |
| Unclassified | 1.0% | 8.0% | −7.0pp |
| Treasuries | 0.0% | 6.2% | −6.2pp |
| Industrials | 3.5% | 9.6% | −6.0pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 10.0% | 6.9% | +3.1pp |
| Consumer Staples | 6.4% | 3.7% | +2.7pp |
Δ is QQQ minus VTIVX, 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
1.5% of QQQ by weight, held in no part of VTIVX.
74.0% of VTIVX by weight, held in no part of QQQ.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| QQQ | VTIVX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 45.9% | 21.4% |
| Positions held | 104 | 6 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $20 | $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 QQQ and VTIVX overlap?
QQQ and VTIVX overlap 24.0% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 100 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (QQQ as of 2026-07-23, VTIVX as of 2026-03-31).
How is the overlap between QQQ and VTIVX calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If QQQ holds a stock at 6% and VTIVX 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 QQQ and VTIVX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 24.0% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does QQQ own that VTIVX doesn't?
QQQ holds 104 positions and VTIVX holds 6; 4 of QQQ's positions don't appear in VTIVX at all, and they are 1.5% of QQQ by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares QQQ and VTIVX. 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 QQQ vs VTIVX
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, QQQ as of 2026-07-23, VTIVX as of 2026-03-31. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.