QQQM vs RGAGX: 44% overlap
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and American Funds Growth Fund of America R6 share 44.0% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
You would hold two tickers and get the diversification of 1.6. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
QQQM and RGAGX hold 58 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in QQQM | in RGAGX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 8.4% | 6.1% | 2.3% |
| MSFT | 5.7% | 4.0% | 1.6% |
| META | 3.7% | 4.2% | 0.5% |
| AVGO | 2.9% | 4.3% | 1.3% |
| GOOG | 3.3% | 2.9% | 0.4% |
| GOOGL | 3.5% | 2.9% | 0.6% |
| AMZN | 4.4% | 2.9% | 1.5% |
| TSLA | 3.9% | 2.6% | 1.3% |
| AAPL | 7.6% | 1.8% | 5.8% |
| MU | 2.5% | 1.8% | 0.7% |
Where QQQM and RGAGX 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 | QQQM | RGAGX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 48.9% | 30.6% | +18.4pp |
| Industrials | 3.0% | 9.8% | −6.9pp |
| Financials | 0.2% | 6.5% | −6.3pp |
| Consumer Staples | 8.5% | 2.4% | +6.1pp |
| Health Care | 5.2% | 11.0% | −5.7pp |
| Unclassified | 2.7% | 7.6% | −4.9pp |
| Communication Services | 15.6% | 13.2% | +2.4pp |
| Energy | 0.6% | 1.9% | −1.3pp |
Δ is QQQM minus RGAGX, 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
15.9% of QQQM by weight, held in no part of RGAGX.
49.7% of RGAGX by weight, held in no part of QQQM.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| QQQM | RGAGX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 46.7% | 36.7% |
| Positions held | 103 | 309 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $15 | $30 |
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 QQQM and RGAGX overlap?
QQQM and RGAGX overlap 44.0% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 58 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (QQQM as of 2026-02-28, RGAGX as of 2026-02-28).
How is the overlap between QQQM and RGAGX calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If QQQM holds a stock at 6% and RGAGX 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 QQQM and RGAGX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 44.0% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does QQQM own that RGAGX doesn't?
QQQM holds 103 positions and RGAGX holds 309; 44 of QQQM's positions don't appear in RGAGX at all, and they are 15.9% of QQQM by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares QQQM and RGAGX. 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 QQQM vs RGAGX
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, QQQM as of 2026-02-28, RGAGX as of 2026-02-28. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.