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

VB vs VHT: how they differ

VB and VHT hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and VHT returned more over the year.

Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund and Vanguard Health Care Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, VB and VHT hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions VB and VHT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingVBVHT
Natera Inc0.45%0.47%
REVOLUTION Medicines Inc0.46%0.40%
Illumina Inc0.31%0.39%
United Therapeutics Corp0.28%0.36%
Incyte Corp0.23%0.26%
Guardant Health Inc0.23%0.23%
Moderna Inc0.30%0.23%
Viatris Inc0.23%0.30%
Neurocrine Biosciences Inc0.21%0.25%
Tenet Healthcare Corp0.20%0.24%
Centene Corp0.19%0.46%
Roivant Sciences Ltd0.22%0.18%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in VBOnly in VHT
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.55%Eli Lilly & Co 14.07%
Jabil Inc 0.49%Johnson & Johnson 8.48%
Astera Labs Inc 0.45%AbbVie Inc 6.10%
EMCOR Group Inc 0.45%UnitedHealth Group Inc 5.46%
Twilio Inc 0.38%Merck & Co Inc 4.67%
NRG Energy Inc 0.38%Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc 2.93%
MKS Instruments Inc 0.37%Amgen Inc 2.87%
Flex Ltd 0.36%Gilead Sciences Inc 2.64%

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.

VB and VHT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
VB
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund
VHT
Vanguard Health Care Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanguardVanguard
What it isSmall-CapHealth Care
Total return, 1 year+15.2%+21.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−2.3 pts+4.1 pts
Expense ratio0.03%0.09%
Already in the S&P 50021.7%85.6%
Holdings1311401

VB in plain words

VB is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +15.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 22% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1311 positions, with the top ten at 4.3%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

VHT in plain words

VHT is an index equity fund tracking the Health Care. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.09% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 86% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 401 positions, with the top ten at 52.0%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, VB or VHT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, VB returned +15.2% and VHT returned +21.6%, so VHT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, VB or VHT?
VB charges 0.03% a year and VHT charges 0.09%, so VB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do VB and VHT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 22% of VB and 86% of VHT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources