SCHG holdings

Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing; what the measure does not tell you · every fund in one table · hold it with other funds? X-ray the mix. Pricing: 100% at a quoted market price (level 1), 5 issuer countries.

SCHG's largest investment is Nvidia Corp at 11.01% of net assets. Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp follow; the three together are 28.01%. Ten companies are 57.21% of the fund; the other 186 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, SCHG behaves like 23.3 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 1.8 times more concentrated than the median. Across 27 quarterly filings SCHG has become more concentrated: it behaved like 43 at 2019-11-30 and 23.3 at 2026-05-31. Between the 2026-02-28 and 2026-05-31 filings 3 positions were added and 3 dropped; 6.2% of the weight moved.

Each sentence is read from the fund's own SEC filing; the class median is computed across the comparable equity funds on this site. Nothing here is a view on the fund.

Between 2019-11-30 and 2026-05-31, SCHG went from behaving like 43 equally weighted positions to 23.3 — 46% fewer, while its top ten went from 39.04% to 57.21% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.

One row per filed reporting period, newest first, read from EDGAR. Quarterly because that is the public filing cadence. Rows marked * are published but held out of the comparison above; the methodology page says when and why.

Measured against every other fund on this site, from the same filings. Combined effective holdings is how the pair behaves held in equal size.

The 15 largest of 196 positions in SCHG's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: SCHG.csv.gz.

Share of SCHG's own investments by the issuer country the filer reported (incorporation, not revenue). Each country links to every fund that holds it.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of SCHG's own filings, 81 months on record. Not computed here and not from a price feed.

Cross-checked against a series computed separately from prices: median difference 0.04 percentage points over 81 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: SCHG.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-05-31, $3m was out to 2 borrowers, 0.01% of net assets. The largest, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., held 66.1% of it.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.01% of net assets, 195.1% of the amount lent. That is a floor on the collateral, not the whole of it — collateral the fund does not hold as a position is not in this filing, so a figure under 100% is not evidence of under-collateralisation. How that figure behaves across all funds. Every quarter SCHG has filed, with each borrower: SCHG.json · all funds.

195 positions became 195: 3 added (0.1% of the fund at the later date), 3 dropped (0.2% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 6.2%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of SCHG compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: Carnival Corp Ltd (0.13%), Fervo Energy Co (0.01%), Chicago Mercantile Exchange (0.01%). Gone: Carnival Corp (0.13%), Exact Sciences Corp (0.07%), Medline Inc (0.03%).

99.94% equity, 0.05% short-term investment as filed; 100.0% carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's; what a low level-1 share does and does not mean is in the measure's page.

A position count cannot describe a fund that uses derivatives, because a swap is filed at its unrealised gain, not its exposure. These are the notionals the fund itself reported, against net assets of $61.08B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Full detail for every fund that files derivatives: leverage.json (CC BY 4.0).

Every measured equity fund lined up by how many holdings it behaves like; these sit either side of SCHG (23.3). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 003 Expense ratio
• 003 Maximum drawdown
• 003 Duration
• 003 Standard deviation

• Is Value 'Cheap'? Reading the Value Spread Instead of Guessing the Factor's Comeback

  A wide value spread tells you the price of the value trade, not its timing — it raises the odds without dating them. Over the last five years VTV and VUG...

  21 Aug 2026 10 min Macro & Markets

• VTV vs VUG: The Value-vs-Growth Split Inside the S&P 500 — What 15 Years of Data Show

  Over the trailing decade VUG compounded faster (18.1% vs 12.6% 10Y CAGR), but it did so with roughly double the realized volatility and a drawdown more than...

  16 Jul 2026 10 min ETF Analysis

• SCHG vs VUG: Large-Cap Growth Twins — Where the Index Construction Diverges

  On the realized record, SCHG and VUG are statistically indistinguishable: a 1 basis-point fee gap, near-identical five-year volatility, and drawdowns within...

  17 Jun 2026 9 min ETF Analysis