RGAGX vs SMH: 15% overlap
American Funds Growth Fund of America R6 and VanEck Semiconductor ETF share 15.0% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
Different holding dates. These holdings were published 31 days apart — RGAGX as of 2026-02-28, the rest through 2026-03-31. 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
RGAGX and SMH hold 14 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in RGAGX | in SMH | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 6.1% | 19.6% | 13.6% |
| AVGO | 4.3% | 7.8% | 3.5% |
| MU | 1.8% | 4.2% | 2.5% |
| AMAT | 0.8% | 4.6% | 3.8% |
| KLAC | 0.5% | 4.7% | 4.2% |
| INTC | 0.5% | 4.3% | 3.8% |
| TSM | 0.3% | 11.8% | 11.5% |
| TXN | 0.2% | 4.6% | 4.4% |
| SNPS | 0.2% | 2.5% | 2.3% |
| LRCX | 0.1% | 4.6% | 4.5% |
Where RGAGX and SMH 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 | RGAGX | SMH | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 30.6% | 92.8% | −62.2pp |
| Communication Services | 13.2% | 0.0% | +13.2pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 12.7% | 0.0% | +12.7pp |
| Health Care | 11.0% | 0.0% | +11.0pp |
| Industrials | 9.8% | 0.0% | +9.8pp |
| Financials | 6.5% | 0.0% | +6.5pp |
| Consumer Staples | 2.4% | 0.0% | +2.4pp |
| Energy | 1.9% | 0.0% | +1.9pp |
Δ is RGAGX minus SMH, 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
83.9% of RGAGX by weight, held in no part of SMH.
19.1% of SMH by weight, held in no part of RGAGX.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| RGAGX | SMH | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 36.7% | 72.2% |
| Positions held | 309 | 26 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $30 | $35 |
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 RGAGX and SMH overlap?
RGAGX and SMH overlap 15.0% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 14 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (RGAGX as of 2026-02-28, SMH as of 2026-03-31).
How is the overlap between RGAGX and SMH calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If RGAGX holds a stock at 6% and SMH 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 RGAGX and SMH?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 15.0% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does RGAGX own that SMH doesn't?
RGAGX holds 309 positions and SMH holds 26; 294 of RGAGX's positions don't appear in SMH at all, and they are 83.9% of RGAGX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares RGAGX and SMH. 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 RGAGX vs SMH
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, RGAGX as of 2026-02-28, SMH as of 2026-03-31. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.