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 XLV: how they differ

VONG and XLV hold 6% of their weight in the same names, and XLV returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, VONG and XLV hold 6% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions VONG and XLV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingVONGXLV
Eli Lilly & Co2.67%16.56%
AbbVie Inc1.16%7.76%
Intuitive Surgical Inc0.45%2.46%
Amgen Inc0.40%3.41%
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc0.34%2.20%
McKesson Corp0.26%1.59%
Cencora Inc0.15%0.96%
Gilead Sciences Inc0.14%2.74%
IDEXX Laboratories Inc0.14%0.72%
Dexcom Inc0.09%0.45%
Stryker Corp0.08%1.90%
Zoetis Inc0.08%0.53%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in VONGOnly in XLV
NVIDIA Corp 13.09%Johnson & Johnson 10.67%
Apple Inc 11.97%UnitedHealth Group Inc 6.59%
Microsoft Corp 8.98%Merck & Co Inc 5.54%
Broadcom Inc 5.78%Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc 3.25%
Amazon.com Inc 5.07%Abbott Laboratories 2.76%
Alphabet Inc 3.91%Pfizer Inc 2.40%
Tesla Inc 3.48%CVS Health Corp 2.30%
Meta Platforms Inc 3.20%Danaher Corp 2.10%

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 XLV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
VONG
Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund
XLV
State Street(R) Health Care Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanguardState Street
What it isRussell 1000 GrowthHealth care
Total return, 1 year+7.2%+20.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−10.3 pts+2.9 pts
Expense ratio0.07%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50095.6%100.0%
Holdings38759

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.

XLV in plain words

XLV is an index equity fund tracking the Health care. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% 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 59 positions, with the top ten at 61.7%. It sat 5.9% below its high of Aug 19, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, VONG or XLV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, VONG returned +7.2% and XLV returned +20.4%, so XLV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, VONG or XLV?
VONG charges 0.07% a year and XLV charges 0.08%, so VONG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do VONG and XLV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 96% of VONG and 100% of XLV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 6% 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 XLV, 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 XLV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/VONG-XLV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources