SCHG vs TRRBX: 0% overlap

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and T. Rowe Price Retirement 2020 share 0.0% 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 3 months apart — TRRBX as of 2026-02-28, the rest through 2026-05-31. Each fund is compared using its most recent file, so any trading in between shows up as a difference.

Hold both, 50/50
2.0Effective Funds

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.

Overlap
0.0%
SCHG expense ratio
0.04%
TRRBX expense ratio
0.53%

Top shared holdings

SCHG and TRRBX hold 0 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:

Holdingin SCHGin TRRBXΔ

Where SCHG and TRRBX 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.

SectorSCHGTRRBXΔ
Unclassified1.9%99.9%98.0pp
Information Technology46.1%0.0%+46.1pp
Communication Services14.7%0.0%+14.7pp
Consumer Discretionary12.1%0.0%+12.1pp
Health Care8.3%0.0%+8.3pp
Financials6.8%0.0%+6.8pp
Industrials6.0%0.0%+6.0pp
Consumer Staples1.7%0.0%+1.7pp

Δ is SCHG minus TRRBX, 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

Only in SCHG
194 positions

100.0% of SCHG by weight, held in no part of TRRBX.

Only in TRRBX
31 positions

99.9% of TRRBX by weight, held in no part of SCHG.

A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.

Concentration and cost

SCHGTRRBX
Top 10 holdings57.2%69.2%
Positions held19531
Cost per $10,000 held, per year$4$53

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 SCHG and TRRBX overlap?

SCHG and TRRBX overlap 0.0% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 0 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (SCHG as of 2026-05-31, TRRBX as of 2026-02-28).

How is the overlap between SCHG and TRRBX calculated?

As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If SCHG holds a stock at 6% and TRRBX 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 SCHG and TRRBX?

That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 0.0% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.

What does SCHG own that TRRBX doesn't?

SCHG holds 195 positions and TRRBX holds 31; 194 of SCHG's positions don't appear in TRRBX at all, and they are 100.0% of SCHG by weight.

You probably hold more than two funds

This page compares SCHG and TRRBX. 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 SCHG vs TRRBX

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, SCHG as of 2026-05-31, TRRBX as of 2026-02-28. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.