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 XLK: how they differ

SCHG and XLK hold 45% of their weight in the same names, and XLK returned more over the year.

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF and State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, SCHG and XLK hold 45% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions SCHG and XLK both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSCHGXLK
NVIDIA Corp11.02%14.66%
Apple Inc9.84%12.86%
Microsoft Corp7.18%8.38%
Broadcom Inc4.55%5.41%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc2.94%5.28%
Palantir Technologies Inc1.25%1.49%
KLA Corp0.88%2.20%
Palo Alto Networks Inc0.80%1.54%
Crowdstrike Holdings Inc0.64%1.08%
Salesforce Inc0.62%0.71%
AppLovin Corp0.58%0.77%
Arista Networks Inc0.57%0.98%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SCHGOnly in XLK
Amazon.com Inc 5.68%Micron Technology Inc 5.42%
Alphabet Inc 4.76%Intel Corp 3.68%
Tesla Inc 3.92%Applied Materials Inc 3.20%
Alphabet Inc 3.78%Lam Research Corp 3.02%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.46%Cisco Systems Inc 2.59%
Eli Lilly & Co 3.06%Sandisk Corp 1.88%
Visa Inc 1.92%Texas Instruments Inc 1.51%
Costco Wholesale Corp 1.48%International Business Machines Corp 1.47%

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.

SCHG and XLK on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
XLK
State Street(R) Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabState Street
What it isU.S. Large-Cap GrowthTechnology
Total return, 1 year+12.7%+39.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.8 pts+21.7 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50095.4%100.0%
Holdings19374

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%.

XLK in plain words

XLK is an index equity fund tracking the Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +39.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 74 positions, with the top ten at 64.5%. It sat 5.2% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SCHG or XLK?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SCHG returned +12.7% and XLK returned +39.2%, so XLK returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SCHG or XLK?
SCHG charges 0.04% a year and XLK charges 0.08%, so SCHG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SCHG and XLK overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 95% of SCHG and 100% of XLK by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 45% 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 XLK, 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 XLK, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/SCHG-XLK Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources