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

SPYG vs XLG: how they differ

SPYG and XLG hold 69% of their weight in the same names, and SPYG returned more over the year.

State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) Growth ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, SPYG and XLG hold 69% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions SPYG and XLG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingSPYGXLG
NVIDIA Corp13.66%13.10%
Microsoft Corp7.81%8.18%
Apple Inc5.99%10.76%
Alphabet Inc5.91%6.05%
Broadcom Inc5.04%4.85%
Alphabet Inc4.71%4.82%
Meta Platforms Inc3.49%3.61%
Amazon.com Inc3.48%6.99%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc2.58%2.35%
Tesla Inc2.07%2.90%
Eli Lilly & Co2.67%2.00%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.68%2.28%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in SPYGOnly in XLG
Micron Technology Inc 3.67%Exxon Mobil Corp. 1.74%
Applied Materials Inc 1.62%Walmart Inc. 1.56%
Lam Research Corp 1.53%Costco Wholesale Corp. 1.22%
KLA Corp 1.11%Chevron Corp. 0.98%
Sandisk Corp 0.95%Bank of America Corp. 0.96%
GE Vernova Inc 0.89%Procter & Gamble Co. (The) 0.92%
RTX Corp 0.72%UnitedHealth Group Inc. 0.91%
Amphenol Corp 0.61%Home Depot, Inc. (The) 0.88%

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 Jun 30, 2026.

SPYG and XLG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
SPYG
State Street(R) SPDR(R) Portfolio S&P 500(R) Growth ETF
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerState StreetInvesco
What it isSPDR Portfolio S&P 500 GrowthS&P 500 top 50
Total return, 1 year+17.9%+12.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+0.4 pts−5.3 pts
Expense ratio0.04%0.20%
Already in the S&P 500100.0%100.0%
Holdings14751

SPYG in plain words

SPYG is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% 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 147 positions, with the top ten at 56.4%.

XLG in plain words

XLG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 top 50. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 51 positions, with the top ten at 63.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, SPYG or XLG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, SPYG returned +17.9% and XLG returned +12.2%, so SPYG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, SPYG or XLG?
SPYG charges 0.04% a year and XLG charges 0.20%, so SPYG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do SPYG and XLG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 100% of SPYG and 100% of XLG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 69% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources