SMH vs SWTSX: 15% overlap
VanEck Semiconductor ETF and Schwab Total Stock Market Index share 15.2% 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 — SMH as of 2026-03-31, the rest through 2026-04-30. 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
SMH and SWTSX hold 21 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in SMH | in SWTSX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 19.6% | 6.9% | 12.7% |
| AVGO | 7.8% | 2.8% | 5.0% |
| MU | 4.2% | 0.8% | 3.4% |
| AMD | 4.7% | 0.8% | 3.9% |
| INTC | 4.3% | 0.6% | 3.7% |
| LRCX | 4.6% | 0.5% | 4.1% |
| AMAT | 4.6% | 0.4% | 4.1% |
| TXN | 4.6% | 0.4% | 4.2% |
| KLAC | 4.7% | 0.3% | 4.4% |
| ADI | 4.7% | 0.3% | 4.4% |
Where SMH and SWTSX 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 | SMH | SWTSX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 92.8% | 32.3% | +60.5pp |
| Financials | 0.0% | 11.9% | −11.9pp |
| Communication Services | 0.0% | 10.1% | −10.1pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 0.0% | 9.6% | −9.6pp |
| Industrials | 0.0% | 9.4% | −9.4pp |
| Health Care | 0.0% | 8.7% | −8.7pp |
| Consumer Staples | 0.0% | 4.6% | −4.6pp |
| Unclassified | 7.2% | 3.4% | +3.8pp |
Δ is SMH minus SWTSX, 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
18.6% of SMH by weight, held in no part of SWTSX.
84.6% of SWTSX by weight, held in no part of SMH.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| SMH | SWTSX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 72.2% | 33.9% |
| Positions held | 26 | 2,939 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $35 | $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 SMH and SWTSX overlap?
SMH and SWTSX overlap 15.2% by portfolio weight — moderate overlap. They share 21 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (SMH as of 2026-03-31, SWTSX as of 2026-04-30).
How is the overlap between SMH and SWTSX calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If SMH holds a stock at 6% and SWTSX 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 SMH and SWTSX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 15.2% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does SMH own that SWTSX doesn't?
SMH holds 26 positions and SWTSX holds 2,939; 5 of SMH's positions don't appear in SWTSX at all, and they are 18.6% of SMH by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares SMH and SWTSX. 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 SMH vs SWTSX
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, SMH as of 2026-03-31, SWTSX as of 2026-04-30. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.