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

DYNF vs VUG: how they differ

DYNF and VUG hold 52% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and Vanguard Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and VUG hold 52% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DYNF and VUG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDYNFVUG
NVIDIA Corp8.62%12.63%
Apple Inc7.75%11.67%
Microsoft Corp5.35%7.62%
Amazon.com Inc4.42%4.47%
Broadcom Inc3.25%4.29%
Alphabet Inc2.87%5.76%
Meta Platforms Inc2.50%3.41%
Alphabet Inc2.10%4.54%
Tesla Inc1.74%3.27%
Lam Research Corp2.71%1.51%
Applied Materials Inc1.41%1.60%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc1.14%2.62%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DYNFOnly in VUG
JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.59%Mastercard Inc 1.13%
Cisco Systems Inc 2.76%KLA Corp 1.10%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.38%Palo Alto Networks Inc 0.78%
Exxon Mobil Corp 1.93%Marvell Technology Inc 0.75%
Johnson & Johnson 1.92%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.61%
Duke Energy Corp 1.63%Arista Networks Inc 0.52%
Bank of America Corp 1.59%Boeing Co/The 0.48%
Parker-Hannifin Corp 1.50%TJX Cos Inc/The 0.48%

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 Apr 30, 2026 and Jun 30, 2026.

DYNF and VUG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
VUG
Vanguard Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesVanguard
What it isU.S. Equity Factor Rotation ActiveUS growth
Total return, 1 year+20.8%+12.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.3 pts−4.6 pts
Expense ratio0.26%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50098.8%97.4%
Holdings187147

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.

VUG in plain words

VUG is an index equity fund tracking the US growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 147 positions, with the top ten at 60.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or VUG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and VUG returned +12.9%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DYNF or VUG?
DYNF charges 0.26% a year and VUG charges 0.03%, so VUG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DYNF and VUG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 97% of VUG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 52% 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.

DYNF against VUG, 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, DYNF against VUG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DYNF-VUG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources