SCHG vs VB: 3% overlap
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap ETF share 3.4% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
Different holding dates. These holdings were published 30 days apart — SCHG as of 2026-05-31, 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
SCHG and VB hold 71 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in SCHG | in VB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALAB | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| EME | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| NTRA | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| CASY | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| CW | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| CRS | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| SOFI | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| MTZ | 0.1% | 0.3% | 0.2% |
| INSM | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| TPL | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
Where SCHG and VB 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 | SCHG | VB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 46.1% | 16.1% | +30.0pp |
| Industrials | 6.0% | 21.0% | −15.0pp |
| Communication Services | 14.7% | 3.0% | +11.7pp |
| Real Estate | 0.5% | 7.1% | −6.6pp |
| Financials | 6.8% | 12.7% | −6.0pp |
| Materials | 0.6% | 5.3% | −4.7pp |
| Health Care | 8.3% | 11.9% | −3.6pp |
| Energy | 0.7% | 3.7% | −3.0pp |
Δ is SCHG minus VB, 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
96.6% of SCHG by weight, held in no part of VB.
87.2% of VB 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
| SCHG | VB | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 57.2% | 5.6% |
| Positions held | 195 | 1,308 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $4 | $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 SCHG and VB overlap?
SCHG and VB overlap 3.4% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 71 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (SCHG as of 2026-05-31, VB as of 2026-06-30).
How is the overlap between SCHG and VB 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 VB 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 VB?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 3.4% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does SCHG own that VB doesn't?
SCHG holds 195 positions and VB holds 1,308; 123 of SCHG's positions don't appear in VB at all, and they are 96.6% of SCHG by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares SCHG and VB. 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 VB
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, VB as of 2026-06-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.