Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
USMV vs VONG: how they differ
USMV and VONG hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and VONG returned more over the year.
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, USMV and VONG hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | USMV | VONG |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA CORPORATION | 1.64% | 13.09% |
| MICROSOFT CORPORATION | 1.56% | 8.98% |
| MASTERCARD INCORPORATED | 1.15% | 1.20% |
| VISA INC. | 0.94% | 1.57% |
| APPLE INC. | 0.82% | 11.97% |
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY | 0.66% | 2.67% |
| ABBVIE INC. | 0.63% | 1.16% |
| AMPHENOL CORPORATION | 1.51% | 0.55% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. | 0.53% | 1.47% |
| PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. | 0.53% | 0.68% |
| BROADCOM INC. | 0.50% | 5.78% |
| ARISTA NETWORKS, INC. | 0.52% | 0.50% |
| Only in USMV | Only in VONG |
|---|---|
| CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 1.81% | Alphabet Inc 3.91% |
| EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60% | Tesla Inc 3.48% |
| DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55% | Lam Research Corp 1.21% |
| THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53% | General Electric Co 1.02% |
| Chubb Limited 1.50% | KLA Corp 0.76% |
| VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1.49% | Intuitive Surgical Inc 0.45% |
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON 1.44% | Booking Holdings Inc 0.39% |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1.42% | Vertiv Holdings Co 0.36% |
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.
| USMV iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF | VONG Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | MSCI USA Min Vol Factor | Russell 1000 Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +6.6% | +7.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −10.9 pts | −10.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.07% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 94.8% | 95.6% |
| Holdings | 170 | 387 |
USMV in plain words
USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.
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, USMV or VONG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, USMV returned +6.6% and VONG returned +7.2%, so VONG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, USMV or VONG?
- USMV charges 0.15% a year and VONG charges 0.07%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do USMV and VONG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 95% of USMV and 96% of VONG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 20% 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, USMV against VONG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/USMV-VONG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources