Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
IBB vs VONG: how they differ
IBB and VONG hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IBB returned more over the year.
iShares Biotechnology ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, IBB and VONG hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | IBB | VONG |
|---|---|---|
| Amgen, Inc. | 7.84% | 0.40% |
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 8.09% | 0.34% |
| Gilead Sciences, Inc. | 6.85% | 0.14% |
| Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 3.12% | 0.12% |
| Natera, Inc. | 2.89% | 0.09% |
| Insmed, Inc. | 1.79% | 0.06% |
| Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. | 1.30% | 0.04% |
| Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 1.00% | 0.03% |
| Exelixis, Inc. | 1.03% | 0.03% |
| Medpace Holdings, Inc. | 0.95% | 0.03% |
| Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. | 0.72% | 0.02% |
| Tempus AI, Inc. | 0.48% | 0.01% |
| Only in IBB | Only in VONG |
|---|---|
| Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 4.91% | NVIDIA Corp 13.09% |
| Argenx SE 3.76% | Apple Inc 11.97% |
| Revolution Medicines, Inc. 2.78% | Microsoft Corp 8.98% |
| Biogen, Inc. 2.47% | Broadcom Inc 5.78% |
| Illumina, Inc. 2.07% | Amazon.com Inc 5.07% |
| Moderna, Inc. 1.99% | Alphabet Inc 3.91% |
| BeOne Medicines Ltd. 1.77% | Tesla Inc 3.48% |
| United Therapeutics Corp. 1.74% | Meta Platforms Inc 3.20% |
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.
| IBB iShares Biotechnology ETF | VONG Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | Biotechnology | Russell 1000 Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +41.5% | +7.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +24.0 pts | −10.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.44% | 0.07% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 35.6% | 95.6% |
| Holdings | 248 | 387 |
IBB in plain words
IBB is an index equity fund tracking the Biotechnology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +41.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.44% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 36% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 248 positions, with the top ten at 44.8%. It sat 6.5% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
VONG in plain words
VONG is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 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 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 96% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 387 positions, with the top ten at 61.3%. It sat 4.9% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, IBB or VONG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, IBB returned +41.5% and VONG returned +7.2%, so IBB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, IBB or VONG?
- IBB charges 0.44% a year and VONG charges 0.07%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do IBB and VONG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 36% of IBB and 96% of VONG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, IBB against VONG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/IBB-VONG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources