SMH vs VTHRX: 6% overlap
VanEck Semiconductor ETF and Vanguard Target Retirement 2030 share 5.8% 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 3 months apart — SMH, VTHRX as of 2026-03-31, 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 1.9. Two funds that shared nothing would score 2.0; two identical funds score 1.0.
Top shared holdings
SMH and VTHRX hold 20 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in SMH | in VTHRX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | 19.6% | 2.2% | 17.5% |
| AVGO | 7.8% | 0.9% | 6.9% |
| MU | 4.2% | 0.6% | 3.6% |
| AMD | 4.7% | 0.5% | 4.2% |
| AMAT | 4.6% | 0.3% | 4.3% |
| INTC | 4.3% | 0.3% | 4.1% |
| LRCX | 4.6% | 0.3% | 4.3% |
| KLAC | 4.7% | 0.2% | 4.6% |
| TXN | 4.6% | 0.1% | 4.5% |
| MRVL | 2.4% | 0.1% | 2.2% |
Where SMH and VTHRX 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 | VTHRX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 92.8% | 17.3% | +75.5pp |
| Treasuries | 0.0% | 13.6% | −13.6pp |
| Financials | 0.0% | 11.3% | −11.3pp |
| Industrials | 0.0% | 6.9% | −6.9pp |
| Unclassified | 7.2% | 13.3% | −6.1pp |
| MBS Pass-Through | 0.0% | 5.7% | −5.7pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 0.0% | 5.0% | −5.0pp |
| Health Care | 0.0% | 4.6% | −4.6pp |
Δ is SMH minus VTHRX, 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
19.8% of SMH by weight, held in no part of VTHRX.
94.1% of VTHRX 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 | VTHRX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 72.2% | 28.9% |
| Positions held | 26 | 7 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $35 | $8 |
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 VTHRX overlap?
SMH and VTHRX overlap 5.8% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 20 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (SMH as of 2026-03-31, VTHRX as of 2026-03-31).
How is the overlap between SMH and VTHRX 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 VTHRX 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 VTHRX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 5.8% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does SMH own that VTHRX doesn't?
SMH holds 26 positions and VTHRX holds 7; 6 of SMH's positions don't appear in VTHRX at all, and they are 19.8% of SMH by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares SMH and VTHRX. 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 VTHRX
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, VTHRX as of 2026-03-31. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.