Data as of Sep 4, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
AGG vs VGT
iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF and Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund.
| AGG iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF | VGT Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core fund | Core fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | US aggregate bonds | Information technology |
| Total return, 1 year | +1.3% | +39.7% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +20.0% | +20.0% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −18.6 pts | +19.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | n/a | 317 |
AGG in plain words
AGG is a bond fund tracking US aggregate bonds. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +1.3% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year.
VGT in plain words
VGT is a index equity fund tracking Information technology. Over the year to Sep 4, 2026 it returned +39.7% with distributions reinvested, against +20.0% for the S&P 500 and +25.6% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 317 positions, with the top ten at 59.5%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 4, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, AGG or VGT?
- In the year to Sep 4, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AGG returned +1.3% and VGT returned +39.7%, so VGT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, AGG or VGT?
- AGG charges 0.03% a year and VGT charges 0.09%, so AGG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Cite this page. ETFIQ, AGG against VGT, data as of Sep 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/AGG-VGT.html Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. ETFIQ publishes the same fields for every fund and suggests no allocation. Standards and sources