Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
MTUM vs VOOG: how they differ
MTUM and VOOG hold 39% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, MTUM and VOOG hold 39% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | MTUM | VOOG |
|---|---|---|
| BROADCOM INC. | 5.41% | 5.90% |
| NVIDIA CORPORATION | 4.65% | 14.29% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. | 5.57% | 3.04% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 2.95% | 6.17% |
| ALPHABET INC. | 2.39% | 4.90% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. | 4.04% | 2.34% |
| JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. | 2.87% | 1.43% |
| CATERPILLAR INC. | 3.21% | 1.14% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION | 3.62% | 1.11% |
| PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC. | 1.52% | 1.00% |
| APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. | 2.36% | 0.99% |
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.76% | 0.89% |
| Only in MTUM | Only in VOOG |
|---|---|
| INTEL CORPORATION 3.84% | Microsoft Corp 9.31% |
| EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44% | Apple Inc 6.38% |
| WALMART INC. 2.76% | Amazon.com Inc 3.90% |
| WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION 1.54% | Meta Platforms Inc 3.85% |
| WELLS FARGO & COMPANY 1.26% | Eli Lilly & Co 2.44% |
| CITIGROUP INC. 1.13% | Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.42% |
| ANALOG DEVICES, INC. 1.02% | Tesla Inc 2.12% |
| LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 0.75% | Netflix Inc 1.01% |
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 May 31, 2026.
| MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | VOOG Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | MSCI USA Momentum Factor | S&P 500 Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +21.8% | +17.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +4.3 pts | +0.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.05% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 98.2% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 125 | 146 |
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
VOOG in plain words
VOOG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 146 positions, with the top ten at 60.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, MTUM or VOOG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MTUM returned +21.8% and VOOG returned +17.8%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, MTUM or VOOG?
- MTUM charges 0.15% a year and VOOG charges 0.05%, so VOOG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do MTUM and VOOG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 98% of MTUM and 100% of VOOG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 39% 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, MTUM against VOOG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/MTUM-VOOG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources