VTIVX vs XLB: 1% overlap
Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 and Materials Select Sector SPDR Fund share 0.9% 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 — VTIVX 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
VTIVX and XLB hold 26 of the same securities. The ten contributing most to the overlap figure:
| Holding | in VTIVX | in XLB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| LIN | 0.2% | 13.9% | 13.7% |
| CASH | 1.9% | 0.1% | 1.8% |
| NEM | 0.1% | 6.0% | 5.9% |
| FCX | 0.1% | 5.4% | 5.3% |
| SHW | 0.1% | 4.5% | 4.5% |
| CRH | 0.0% | 4.3% | 4.3% |
| ECL | 0.0% | 4.5% | 4.5% |
| APD | 0.0% | 4.7% | 4.6% |
| CTVA | 0.0% | 5.3% | 5.2% |
| NUE | 0.0% | 4.2% | 4.2% |
Where VTIVX and XLB 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 | VTIVX | XLB | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materials | 2.7% | 99.8% | −97.1pp |
| Information Technology | 23.8% | 0.0% | +23.8pp |
| Financials | 13.3% | 0.0% | +13.3pp |
| Industrials | 9.6% | 0.0% | +9.6pp |
| Unclassified | 8.0% | 0.0% | +8.0pp |
| Consumer Discretionary | 6.9% | 0.0% | +6.9pp |
| Health Care | 6.3% | 0.0% | +6.3pp |
| Treasuries | 6.2% | 0.0% | +6.2pp |
Δ is VTIVX minus XLB, 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
97.2% of VTIVX by weight, held in no part of XLB.
2.7% of XLB by weight, held in no part of VTIVX.
A large count with a small weight is the usual shape: the positions one fund adds are typically its smallest ones.
Concentration and cost
| VTIVX | XLB | |
|---|---|---|
| Top 10 holdings | 21.4% | 57.4% |
| Positions held | 6 | 28 |
| 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 VTIVX and XLB overlap?
VTIVX and XLB overlap 0.9% by portfolio weight — largely distinct portfolios. They share 26 holdings. The figure comes from current issuer holdings files (VTIVX as of 2026-03-31, XLB as of 2026-07-23).
How is the overlap between VTIVX and XLB calculated?
As the sum of the smaller weight in each fund, over every holding both funds own: Σ min(wA, wB). If VTIVX holds a stock at 6% and XLB 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 VTIVX and XLB?
That depends on your goals — we state facts, not advice. At 0.9% overlap, each fund still contributes meaningfully distinct exposure.
What does VTIVX own that XLB doesn't?
VTIVX holds 6 positions and XLB holds 28; 16,656 of VTIVX's positions don't appear in XLB at all, and they are 97.2% of VTIVX by weight.
You probably hold more than two funds
This page compares VTIVX and XLB. 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 VTIVX vs XLB
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, VTIVX as of 2026-03-31, XLB as of 2026-07-23. Weights are fractions of each fund. Diagnostics, not advice.