QQQM vs VONG: 55% overlap
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF share 55.2% 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 — QQQM as of 2026-02-28, 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 1.4. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
QQQM and VONG hold 59 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in QQQM | in VONG | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 8.4% | 13.8% | 5.5% |
| AAPL | 7.6% | 6.7% | 0.9% |
| MSFT | 5.7% | 4.1% | 1.6% |
| TSLA | 3.9% | 3.6% | 0.3% |
| GOOGL | 3.5% | 6.2% | 2.6% |
| GOOG | 3.3% | 5.0% | 1.7% |
| META | 3.7% | 3.0% | 0.7% |
| AVGO | 2.9% | 5.2% | 2.3% |
| MU | 2.5% | 3.9% | 1.4% |
| AMD | 1.7% | 2.8% | 1.0% |
Where QQQM and VONG 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 | VONG | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer Staples | 8.5% | 1.3% | +7.2pp |
| Industrials | 3.0% | 8.8% | −5.9pp |
| Information Technology | 48.9% | 54.3% | −5.3pp |
| Financials | 0.2% | 4.3% | −4.0pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 11.9% | 8.2% | +3.8pp |
| Unclassified | 2.7% | 0.0% | +2.7pp |
| Utilities | 1.6% | 0.3% | +1.3pp |
| Materials | 1.3% | 0.3% | +1.0pp |
Δ is QQQM minus VONG, 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
19.9% of QQQM by weight, held in no part of VONG.
29.3% of VONG 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 | VONG | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 46.7% | 54.3% |
| Positions held | 103 | 370 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $15 | $6 |
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 VONG overlap?
QQQM and VONG overlap 55.2% by portfolio weight — substantial duplication if you hold both. They share 59 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (QQQM as of 2026-02-28, VONG as of 2026-06-30).
How is the overlap between QQQM and VONG 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 VONG 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 VONG?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 55.2% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does QQQM own that VONG doesn't?
QQQM holds 103 positions and VONG holds 370; 43 of QQQM's positions don't appear in VONG at all, and they are 19.9% of QQQM by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares QQQM and VONG. 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 VONG
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, VONG as of 2026-06-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.