VBR vs VTTSX: 5% overlap
Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF and Vanguard Target Retirement 2060 share 5.2% of their portfolios by weight — computed as Σ min(wA, wB) over every holding both funds own.
Different holding dates. These holdings were published about 3 months apart — VTTSX 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
VBR and VTTSX hold 838 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in VBR | in VTTSX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASH | 0.8% | 2.0% | 1.2% |
| AIR | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| CFR | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| AAL | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.2% |
| TSCO | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| FLEX | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.3% |
| CSL | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.3% |
| G | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| EQT | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
| UCB | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
Where VBR and VTTSX 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 | VBR | VTTSX | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Information Technology | 9.4% | 26.3% | −16.9pp |
| Industrials | 18.8% | 10.6% | +8.2pp |
| Real Estate | 9.8% | 1.9% | +7.9pp |
| Unclassified | 0.5% | 6.1% | −5.6pp |
| Materials | 7.2% | 3.0% | +4.2pp |
| Financials | 18.3% | 14.1% | +4.2pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 11.4% | 7.6% | +3.8pp |
| Communication Services | 2.4% | 6.0% | −3.6pp |
Δ is VBR minus VTTSX, 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
0.0% of VBR by weight, held in no part of VTTSX.
93.4% of VTTSX by weight, held in no part of VBR.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| VBR | VTTSX | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 6.2% | 19.3% |
| Positions held | 839 | 6 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $5 | $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 VBR and VTTSX overlap?
VBR and VTTSX overlap 5.2% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 838 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (VBR as of 2026-06-30, VTTSX as of 2026-03-31).
How is the overlap between VBR and VTTSX calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If VBR holds a stock at 6% and VTTSX 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 VBR and VTTSX?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 5.2% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does VBR own that VTTSX doesn't?
VBR holds 839 positions and VTTSX holds 6; 1 of VBR's positions don't appear in VTTSX at all, and they are 0.0% of VBR by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares VBR and VTTSX. 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 VBR vs VTTSX
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, VBR as of 2026-06-30, VTTSX as of 2026-03-31. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.