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

SPHD vs VONG: how they differ

SPHD and VONG hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and SPHD returned more over the year.

Invesco S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, SPHD and VONG hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions SPHD and VONG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSPHDVONG
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.2.08%0.07%
Kimberly-Clark Corp.2.09%0.04%
Paychex, Inc.1.46%0.03%
Public Storage2.08%0.02%
Williams Cos., Inc. (The)1.61%0.01%
UDR, Inc.1.96%0.00%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SPHDOnly in VONG
Verizon Communications Inc. 3.49%NVIDIA Corp 13.09%
Altria Group, Inc. 3.45%Apple Inc 11.97%
Healthpeak Properties, Inc. 3.24%Microsoft Corp 8.98%
Kraft Heinz Co. (The) 3.03%Broadcom Inc 5.78%
Pfizer Inc. 2.99%Amazon.com Inc 5.07%
Franklin Resources, Inc. 2.82%Alphabet Inc 3.91%
VICI Properties Inc. 2.68%Tesla Inc 3.48%
ONEOK, Inc. 2.66%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 May 31, 2026.

SPHD and VONG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SPHD
Invesco S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF
VONG
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerInvescoVanguard
What it isS&P 500 High Dividend Low VolatilityRussell 1000 Growth
Total return, 1 year+8.6%+7.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−8.9 pts−10.3 pts
Expense ratio0.30%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50095.7%95.6%
Holdings49387

SPHD in plain words

SPHD is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +8.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.30% 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 49 positions, with the top ten at 29.3%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Aug 24, 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, SPHD or VONG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SPHD returned +8.6% and VONG returned +7.2%, so SPHD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SPHD or VONG?
SPHD charges 0.30% a year and VONG charges 0.07%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SPHD and VONG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of SPHD and 96% of VONG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources