RGAGX vs VTI: 49% overlap
American Funds Growth Fund of America R6 and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF share 49.0% 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 — 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 1.5. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
RGAGX and VTI hold 243 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in RGAGX | in VTI | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 6.1% | 6.3% | 0.3% |
| MSFT | 4.0% | 3.8% | 0.2% |
| GOOGL | 2.9% | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| AMZN | 2.9% | 3.2% | 0.3% |
| AVGO | 4.3% | 2.5% | 1.8% |
| GOOG | 2.9% | 2.3% | 0.7% |
| AAPL | 1.8% | 5.8% | 4.0% |
| MU | 1.8% | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| META | 4.2% | 1.7% | 2.5% |
| TSLA | 2.6% | 1.6% | 1.0% |
Where RGAGX and VTI 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 | VTI | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified | 7.6% | 0.2% | +7.4pp |
| Financials | 6.5% | 11.9% | −5.3pp |
| Information Technology | 30.6% | 35.2% | −4.7pp |
| Communication Services | 13.2% | 9.1% | +4.2pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 12.7% | 9.2% | +3.5pp |
| Consumer Staples | 2.4% | 4.3% | −1.9pp |
| Utilities | 0.5% | 2.2% | −1.7pp |
| Real Estate | 0.6% | 2.2% | −1.6pp |
Δ is RGAGX minus VTI, 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
15.0% of RGAGX by weight, held in no part of VTI.
32.3% of VTI 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 | VTI | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 36.7% | 31.9% |
| Positions held | 309 | 3,495 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $30 | $3 |
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 VTI overlap?
RGAGX and VTI overlap 49.0% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 243 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (RGAGX as of 2026-02-28, VTI as of 2026-06-30).
How is the overlap between RGAGX and VTI 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 VTI 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 VTI?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 49.0% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does RGAGX own that VTI doesn't?
RGAGX holds 309 positions and VTI holds 3,495; 65 of RGAGX's positions don't appear in VTI at all, and they are 15.0% of RGAGX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares RGAGX and VTI. 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 VTI
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, VTI as of 2026-06-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.