SCHG vs VT: 30% overlap
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock ETF share 30.1% 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 1.7. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
SCHG and VT hold 184 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in SCHG | in VT | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 11.0% | 4.0% | 7.0% |
| AAPL | 9.8% | 3.6% | 6.2% |
| MSFT | 7.2% | 2.4% | 4.8% |
| AMZN | 5.7% | 2.0% | 3.7% |
| GOOGL | 4.8% | 1.8% | 2.9% |
| AVGO | 4.5% | 1.5% | 3.0% |
| GOOG | 3.8% | 1.4% | 2.4% |
| META | 3.5% | 1.1% | 2.4% |
| TSLA | 3.9% | 1.1% | 2.9% |
| LLY | 3.1% | 0.8% | 2.2% |
Where SCHG and VT 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 | VT | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 46.1% | 30.1% | +16.0pp |
| Financials | 6.8% | 14.9% | −8.1pp |
| Communication Services | 14.7% | 7.0% | +7.7pp |
| Industrials | 6.0% | 11.5% | −5.5pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 12.1% | 8.6% | +3.5pp |
| Consumer Staples | 1.7% | 4.6% | −2.9pp |
| Materials | 0.6% | 3.3% | −2.7pp |
| Energy | 0.7% | 3.0% | −2.3pp |
Δ is SCHG minus VT, 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
1.9% of SCHG by weight, held in no part of VT.
68.9% of VT 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 | VT | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 57.2% | 20.5% |
| Positions held | 195 | 9,600 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $4 | $6 |
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 VT overlap?
SCHG and VT overlap 30.1% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 184 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (SCHG as of 2026-05-31, VT as of 2026-06-30).
How is the overlap between SCHG and VT 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 VT 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 VT?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 30.1% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does SCHG own that VT doesn't?
SCHG holds 195 positions and VT holds 9,600; 10 of SCHG's positions don't appear in VT at all, and they are 1.9% of SCHG by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares SCHG and VT. 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 VT
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, VT as of 2026-06-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.