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

VONG vs XHB: how they differ

VONG and XHB hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and VONG returned more over the year.

Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Homebuilders ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, VONG and XHB hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions VONG and XHB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingVONGXHB
Home Depot Inc/The0.73%3.28%
Lennox International Inc0.05%3.37%
Tempur Sealy International Inc0.04%3.40%
AAON Inc0.03%3.11%
Williams-Sonoma Inc0.01%3.34%
Carlisle Cos Inc0.01%3.28%
TopBuild Corp0.00%2.67%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in VONGOnly in XHB
NVIDIA Corp 13.09%Owens Corning 4.10%
Apple Inc 11.97%Advanced Drainage Systems Inc 3.60%
Microsoft Corp 8.98%KB Home 3.56%
Broadcom Inc 5.78%Builders FirstSource Inc 3.56%
Amazon.com Inc 5.07%Meritage Homes Corp 3.53%
Alphabet Inc 3.91%Toll Brothers Inc 3.52%
Tesla Inc 3.48%Installed Building Products Inc 3.49%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.20%PulteGroup Inc 3.44%

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.

VONG and XHB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
VONG
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund
XHB
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Homebuilders ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanguardState Street
What it isRussell 1000 GrowthSPDR S&P Homebuilders
Total return, 1 year+7.2%−16.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts−34.1 pts
Expense ratio0.07%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50095.6%45.7%
Holdings38735

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.

XHB in plain words

XHB is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Homebuilders. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −16.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 46% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 35 positions, with the top ten at 35.6%. It sat 20.6% below its high of Oct 18, 2024 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, VONG or XHB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, VONG returned +7.2% and XHB returned −16.6%, so VONG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, VONG or XHB?
VONG charges 0.07% a year and XHB charges 0.35%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do VONG and XHB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of VONG and 46% of XHB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources