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 XOVR: how they differ

VB and XOVR hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and VB returned more over the year.

Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, VB and XOVR hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions VB and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingVBXOVR
Astera Labs Inc0.45%7.75%
Natera Inc0.45%3.70%
Affirm Holdings Inc0.26%2.64%
Roku Inc0.22%2.16%
Toast Inc0.17%1.71%
Exelixis Inc0.16%1.89%
Medpace Holdings Inc0.15%1.67%
DraftKings Inc0.14%1.81%
Globus Medical Inc0.11%1.35%
Tempus AI Inc0.08%2.06%
Virtu Financial Inc0.06%1.86%
Pegasystems Inc0.03%1.56%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in VBOnly in XOVR
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.55%Nvidia Corp 9.48%
Jabil Inc 0.49%Alphabet Inc 6.53%
REVOLUTION Medicines Inc 0.46%Meta Platforms Inc 4.47%
EMCOR Group Inc 0.45%Applovin Corp 3.95%
Twilio Inc 0.38%Robinhood Markets Inc 3.56%
NRG Energy Inc 0.38%Veeva Systems Inc 3.17%
MKS Instruments Inc 0.37%Reddit Inc 2.78%
Flex Ltd 0.36%Axon Enterprise Inc 2.60%

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.

VB and XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
VB
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanguardERShares
What it isSmall-CapPrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+15.2%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−2.3 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.03%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50021.7%43.4%
Holdings131132

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.

XOVR in plain words

XOVR is an index equity fund tracking the Private-Public Crossover. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned 0.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 32 positions, with the top ten at 63.1%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Oct 27, 2025 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, VB or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, VB returned +15.2% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so VB returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, VB or XOVR?
VB charges 0.03% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so VB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do VB and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 22% of VB and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 XOVR, 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 XOVR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/VB-XOVR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources