RGAGX vs VBR: 3% overlap
American Funds Growth Fund of America R6 and Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF share 2.8% 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 — RGAGX 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 2.0. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
RGAGX and VBR hold 36 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in RGAGX | in VBR | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| STLD | 0.2% | 0.3% | 0.1% |
| MRNA | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.3% |
| NVR | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| ALB | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| TSCO | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
| FLUT | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| ILMN | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.1% |
| EXE | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.3% |
| IP | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| CHTR | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
Where RGAGX and VBR 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 | VBR | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 30.6% | 9.4% | +21.2pp |
| Financials | 6.5% | 18.3% | −11.8pp |
| Communication Services | 13.2% | 2.4% | +10.8pp |
| Real Estate | 0.6% | 9.8% | −9.2pp |
| Industrials | 9.8% | 18.8% | −9.0pp |
| Unclassified | 7.6% | 0.5% | +7.1pp |
| Materials | 1.5% | 7.2% | −5.7pp |
| Utilities | 0.5% | 5.2% | −4.7pp |
Δ is RGAGX minus VBR, 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
95.8% of RGAGX by weight, held in no part of VBR.
91.8% of VBR 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 | VBR | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 36.7% | 6.2% |
| Positions held | 309 | 839 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $30 | $5 |
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 VBR overlap?
RGAGX and VBR overlap 2.8% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 36 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (RGAGX as of 2026-02-28, VBR as of 2026-06-30).
How is the overlap between RGAGX and VBR 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 VBR 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 VBR?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 2.8% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does RGAGX own that VBR doesn't?
RGAGX holds 309 positions and VBR holds 839; 272 of RGAGX's positions don't appear in VBR at all, and they are 95.8% of RGAGX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares RGAGX and VBR. 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 VBR
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, VBR as of 2026-06-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.