RGAGX vs VTV: 17% overlap
American Funds Growth Fund of America R6 and Vanguard Value ETF share 16.8% 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 1.8. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
RGAGX and VTV hold 104 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in RGAGX | in VTV | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| MU | 1.8% | 4.9% | 3.1% |
| PM | 0.9% | 1.1% | 0.1% |
| GE | 1.1% | 0.7% | 0.4% |
| AMGN | 0.5% | 0.7% | 0.2% |
| CAT | 0.5% | 1.8% | 1.3% |
| INTC | 0.5% | 1.1% | 0.6% |
| PGR | 0.4% | 0.5% | 0.1% |
| CRM | 0.4% | 0.5% | 0.1% |
| BAC | 0.3% | 1.4% | 1.0% |
| XOM | 0.3% | 2.1% | 1.8% |
Where RGAGX and VTV 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 | VTV | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 30.6% | 14.1% | +16.5pp |
| Financials | 6.5% | 22.1% | −15.5pp |
| Communication Services | 13.2% | 2.9% | +10.4pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 12.7% | 3.9% | +8.7pp |
| Unclassified | 7.6% | 0.5% | +7.1pp |
| Consumer Staples | 2.4% | 8.7% | −6.3pp |
| Industrials | 9.8% | 15.0% | −5.1pp |
| Energy | 1.9% | 6.8% | −4.9pp |
Δ is RGAGX minus VTV, 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
74.9% of RGAGX by weight, held in no part of VTV.
43.1% of VTV 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 | VTV | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 36.7% | 23.6% |
| Positions held | 309 | 309 |
| 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 VTV overlap?
RGAGX and VTV overlap 16.8% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 104 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (RGAGX as of 2026-02-28, VTV as of 2026-06-30).
How is the overlap between RGAGX and VTV 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 VTV 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 VTV?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 16.8% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does RGAGX own that VTV doesn't?
RGAGX holds 309 positions and VTV holds 309; 204 of RGAGX's positions don't appear in VTV at all, and they are 74.9% of RGAGX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares RGAGX and VTV. 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 VTV
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, VTV as of 2026-06-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.