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

GRNY vs XLG: how they differ

GRNY and XLG hold 31% of their weight in the same names, and GRNY returned more over the year.

Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, GRNY and XLG hold 31% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions GRNY and XLG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingGRNYXLG
Amazon.com Inc3.02%6.99%
Alphabet Inc2.96%6.05%
Broadcom Inc2.94%4.85%
NVIDIA Corp2.46%13.10%
Apple Inc2.40%10.76%
Microsoft Corp2.38%8.18%
JPMorgan Chase & Co2.33%2.28%
Meta Platforms Inc2.24%3.61%
Tesla Inc2.15%2.90%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc4.17%1.56%
Costco Wholesale Corp2.33%1.22%
Caterpillar Inc2.69%1.12%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in GRNYOnly in XLG
Quanta Services Inc 3.20%Alphabet Inc. 4.82%
GE Vernova Inc 3.05%Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 2.35%
Strategy Inc 3.01%Eli Lilly and Co. 2.00%
Arista Networks Inc 2.88%Exxon Mobil Corp. 1.74%
KLA Corp 2.75%Walmart Inc. 1.56%
Bank of New York Mellon Corp/T 2.59%Visa Inc. 1.50%
Eaton Corp PLC 2.56%Johnson & Johnson 1.50%
Cadence Design Systems Inc 2.54%Mastercard Inc. 1.11%

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.

GRNY and XLG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
GRNY
Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFundstratInvesco
What it isFundstrat Granny Shots US Large CapS&P 500 top 50
Total return, 1 year+13.8%+12.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−3.7 pts−5.3 pts
Expense ratio0.75%0.20%
Already in the S&P 50097.0%100.0%
Holdings4051

GRNY in plain words

GRNY is an index equity fund tracking the Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 40 positions, with the top ten at 30.8%.

XLG in plain words

XLG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 top 50. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 51 positions, with the top ten at 63.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, GRNY or XLG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, GRNY returned +13.8% and XLG returned +12.2%, so GRNY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, GRNY or XLG?
GRNY charges 0.75% a year and XLG charges 0.20%, so XLG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do GRNY and XLG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 97% of GRNY and 100% of XLG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 31% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources