VTHRX vs XLF: 4% overlap
Vanguard Target Retirement 2030 and Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund share 3.8% 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 4 months apart — VTHRX as of 2026-03-31, the rest through 2026-07-23. 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
VTHRX and XLF hold 77 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in VTHRX | in XLF | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK-B | 0.4% | 11.4% | 11.0% |
| JPM | 0.4% | 11.9% | 11.5% |
| V | 0.3% | 7.4% | 7.1% |
| MA | 0.2% | 5.4% | 5.2% |
| BAC | 0.2% | 5.1% | 4.9% |
| GS | 0.1% | 4.0% | 3.9% |
| MS | 0.1% | 3.3% | 3.1% |
| WFC | 0.1% | 3.3% | 3.2% |
| CASH | 1.9% | 0.1% | 1.8% |
| C | 0.1% | 2.9% | 2.7% |
Where VTHRX and XLF 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 | VTHRX | XLF | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financials | 11.3% | 99.9% | −88.5pp |
| Information Technology | 17.3% | 0.0% | +17.3pp |
| Treasuries | 13.6% | 0.0% | +13.6pp |
| Unclassified | 13.3% | 0.0% | +13.3pp |
| Industrials | 6.9% | 0.0% | +6.9pp |
| MBS Pass-Through | 5.7% | 0.0% | +5.7pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 5.0% | 0.0% | +5.0pp |
| Health Care | 4.6% | 0.0% | +4.6pp |
Δ is VTHRX minus XLF, 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
94.4% of VTHRX by weight, held in no part of XLF.
0.0% of XLF by weight, held in no part of VTHRX.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| VTHRX | XLF | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 28.9% | 57.0% |
| Positions held | 7 | 78 |
| Cost per $10,000 held, per year | $8 | $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 VTHRX and XLF overlap?
VTHRX and XLF overlap 3.8% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 77 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (VTHRX as of 2026-03-31, XLF as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between VTHRX and XLF calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If VTHRX holds a stock at 6% and XLF 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 VTHRX and XLF?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 3.8% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does VTHRX own that XLF doesn't?
VTHRX holds 7 positions and XLF holds 78; 16,606 of VTHRX's positions don't appear in XLF at all, and they are 94.4% of VTHRX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares VTHRX and XLF. 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 VTHRX vs XLF
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, VTHRX as of 2026-03-31, XLF as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.