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

SCHG vs VT: how they differ

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

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund.

What they hold in common

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

Positions SCHG and VT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSCHGVT
NVIDIA Corp11.02%4.22%
Apple Inc9.84%3.53%
Microsoft Corp7.18%2.73%
Amazon.com Inc5.68%2.29%
Alphabet Inc4.76%2.04%
Broadcom Inc4.55%1.74%
Alphabet Inc3.78%1.61%
Meta Platforms Inc3.46%1.21%
Tesla Inc3.92%0.97%
Eli Lilly & Co3.06%0.68%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc2.94%0.52%
Visa Inc1.92%0.50%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SCHGOnly in VT
Linde PLC 0.81%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 1.52%
Trane Technologies PLC 0.35%JPMorgan Chase & Co 0.72%
TE Connectivity PLC 0.22%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.69%
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.13%Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 0.64%
Carnival Corp Ltd 0.13%Exxon Mobil Corp 0.59%
FTAI Aviation Ltd 0.09%Micron Technology Inc 0.52%
Flutter Entertainment PLC 0.06%Walmart Inc 0.52%
Roivant Sciences Ltd 0.05%ASML Holding NV 0.51%

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.

SCHG and VT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
VT
Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabVanguard
What it isU.S. Large-Cap GrowthTotal World Stock
Total return, 1 year+12.7%+18.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.8 pts+1.4 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.06%
Already in the S&P 50095.4%55.2%
Holdings19310042

SCHG in plain words

SCHG is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large-Cap Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 193 positions, with the top ten at 57.2%.

VT in plain words

VT is an index equity fund tracking the Total World Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 55% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 10042 positions, with the top ten at 21.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SCHG or VT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHG returned +12.7% and VT returned +18.9%, so VT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SCHG or VT?
SCHG charges 0.04% a year and VT charges 0.06%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SCHG and VT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of SCHG and 55% of VT 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources