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

VGT vs VTWO: how they differ

VGT and VTWO hold 7% of their weight in the same names, and VGT returned more over the year.

Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund and Vanguard Russell 2000 Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, VGT and VTWO hold 7% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions VGT and VTWO both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingVGTVTWO
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd0.22%1.12%
TTM Technologies Inc0.14%0.52%
DigitalOcean Holdings Inc0.14%0.35%
Fabrinet0.14%0.69%
Sanmina Corp0.13%0.41%
Hut 8 Corp0.13%0.36%
SiTime Corp0.13%0.47%
Semtech Corp0.13%0.42%
Applied Digital Corp0.12%0.33%
IonQ Inc0.12%0.63%
Rambus Inc0.12%0.46%
Riot Platforms Inc0.12%0.28%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in VGTOnly in VTWO
NVIDIA Corp 16.85%Bloom Energy Corp 1.83%
Apple Inc 14.59%Sterling Infrastructure Inc 0.76%
Microsoft Corp 9.47%Nextpower Inc 0.67%
Broadcom Inc 4.21%Coeur Mining Inc 0.58%
Micron Technology Inc 4.21%EchoStar Corp 0.52%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc 3.21%Guardant Health Inc 0.47%
Intel Corp 2.03%Dycom Industries Inc 0.44%
Cisco Systems Inc 1.85%Modine Manufacturing Co 0.43%

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.

VGT and VTWO on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
VGT
Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund
VTWO
Vanguard Russell 2000 Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanguardVanguard
What it isInformation technologyRussell 2000
Total return, 1 year+35.4%+21.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+17.9 pts+3.9 pts
Expense ratio0.09%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50086.9%0.5%
Holdings3171951

VGT in plain words

VGT is an index equity fund tracking the Information technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +35.4% 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, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 317 positions, with the top ten at 59.5%. It sat 3.6% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

VTWO in plain words

VTWO is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.4% 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, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1951 positions, with the top ten at 7.8%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, VGT or VTWO?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, VGT returned +35.4% and VTWO returned +21.4%, so VGT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, VGT or VTWO?
VGT charges 0.09% a year and VTWO charges 0.07%, so VTWO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do VGT and VTWO overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of VGT and 0% of VTWO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 7% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources