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 XLC: how they differ

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

Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund and State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

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

Positions VONG and XLC both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingVONGXLC
Alphabet Inc3.91%13.10%
Meta Platforms Inc3.20%19.93%
Alphabet Inc3.15%10.44%
Netflix Inc1.10%4.84%
Live Nation Entertainment Inc0.08%3.50%
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc0.04%5.26%
Trade Desk Inc/The0.03%0.93%
TKO Group Holdings Inc0.02%1.53%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in VONGOnly in XLC
NVIDIA Corp 13.09%Comcast Corp 4.71%
Apple Inc 11.97%Warner Bros Discovery Inc 4.67%
Microsoft Corp 8.98%Electronic Arts Inc 4.64%
Broadcom Inc 5.78%Walt Disney Co/The 4.49%
Amazon.com Inc 5.07%T-Mobile US Inc 4.16%
Tesla Inc 3.48%Verizon Communications Inc 4.15%
Eli Lilly & Co 2.67%AT&T Inc 4.10%
Visa Inc 1.57%Omnicom Group Inc 2.51%

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 XLC on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
VONG
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund
XLC
State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanguardState Street
What it isRussell 1000 GrowthCommunication services
Total return, 1 year+7.2%−2.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts−19.5 pts
Expense ratio0.07%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50095.6%100.0%
Holdings38723

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.

XLC in plain words

XLC is an index equity fund tracking the Communication services. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −2.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 23 positions, with the top ten at 76.2%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Jan 30, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, VONG or XLC?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, VONG returned +7.2% and XLC returned −2.0%, so VONG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, VONG or XLC?
VONG charges 0.07% a year and XLC charges 0.08%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do VONG and XLC overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of VONG and 100% of XLC 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources