Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

CGGR vs VXF: how they differ

CGGR and VXF hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and VXF returned more over the year.

Capital Group Growth ETF and Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CGGR and VXF hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions CGGR and VXF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingCGGRVXF
Cloudflare Inc1.65%0.92%
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc0.76%0.47%
Strategy Inc1.03%0.34%
Affirm Holdings Inc0.56%0.28%
Rocket Lab Corp0.26%0.61%
ROBLOX Corp0.25%0.43%
Burlington Stores Inc0.38%0.23%
Guardant Health Inc0.25%0.23%
Performance Food Group Co0.83%0.21%
Rocket Cos Inc0.26%0.18%
Aramark0.46%0.18%
Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc0.36%0.15%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in CGGROnly in VXF
Meta Platforms Inc 7.09%Space Exploration Technologies Corp 1.19%
Tesla Inc 5.85%Snowflake Inc 1.03%
Broadcom Inc 5.40%Bloom Energy Corp 0.93%
NVIDIA Corp 5.16%Astera Labs Inc 0.76%
Micron Technology Inc 4.86%Cheniere Energy Inc 0.59%
Microsoft Corp 4.38%Ferguson Enterprises Inc 0.54%
Alphabet Inc 3.36%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.52%
Alphabet Inc 3.06%Natera Inc 0.46%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

CGGR and VXF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
CGGR
Capital Group Growth ETF
VXF
Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerCapitalVanguard
What it isGrowthExtended Market
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+14.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts−3.4 pts
Expense ratio0.39%0.05%
Already in the S&P 50080.6%0.0%
Holdings893365

CGGR in plain words

CGGR is an index equity fund tracking the Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.39% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 81% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 89 positions, with the top ten at 44.2%.

VXF in plain words

VXF is an index equity fund tracking the Extended Market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 3365 positions, with the top ten at 7.6%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CGGR or VXF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CGGR returned +7.2% and VXF returned +14.1%, so VXF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, CGGR or VXF?
CGGR charges 0.39% a year and VXF charges 0.05%, so VXF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do CGGR and VXF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 81% of CGGR and 0% of VXF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

CGGR against VXF, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, CGGR against VXF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/CGGR-VXF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources