VGT 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), one issuer country.

VGT's largest investment is Nvidia Corp at 16.82% of net assets. Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp follow; the three together are 40.85%. Ten companies are 59.38% of the fund; the other 311 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, VGT behaves like 15.1 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 2.8 times more concentrated than the median. Across 27 quarterly filings VGT has held roughly steady since 2019-11-30 (15.1 then, 15.1 now). Between the 2026-02-28 and 2026-05-31 filings 3 positions were added and 5 dropped; 8.7% 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, VGT went from behaving like 15.1 equally weighted positions to 15.1 — 0% more, while its top ten went from 56.01% to 59.38% 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 321 positions in VGT's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: VGT.csv.gz.

Monthly total returns from Item B.5 of VGT'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: VGT.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, $461m was out to 21 borrowers, 0.27% of net assets. The largest, BofA Securities, Inc., held 41.3% of it.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.28% of net assets, 104.4% 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 VGT has filed, with each borrower: VGT.json · all funds.

320 positions became 318: 3 added (0.0% of the fund at the later date), 5 dropped (0.2% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 8.7%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of VGT compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: Digimarc Corp (0.00%), Cerebras Systems Inc (0.00%), Freyr Battery Inc (0.00%). Gone: Confluent Inc (0.15%), Onestream Inc (0.03%), SEMrush Holdings Inc (0.01%), Digimarc Corp (0.00%), Figma Inc (0.00%).

99.61% equity, 0.39% 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 $171.81B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Financing leg as filed: the fund pays OBFR01 + 0% on $84M of long swap notional . Issuers fill the spread field differently (some file the all-in rate), so compare within an issuer, not across.

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 VGT (15.1). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 008 Expense ratio
• 008 Maximum drawdown
• 008 Duration
• 005 Standard deviation
• 004 Factor exposure
• 004 Beta
• 004 Correlation

The same filings read aloud in under a minute. Links open YouTube; nothing from it loads on this page.

• QQQM vs VGT: owning both is less diversified than QQQM alone (54% overlap) 2026-10-08

• QQQ Holdings: All 105 Positions, the Top 10 at 45%, and Why It Behaves Like 34 Stocks

  What the Invesco QQQ Trust actually held on 30 June 2026, from its SEC Form N-PORT filing: 102 stocks plus three cash and futures lines, the fifty largest with weights, and the arithmetic that turns "105 holdings" into an effective count of 34. Nvidia 7.6%, Apple 6.7%, Micron 5.6%; the top ten are 45.0% and the top fifty 87.5%. Overlap with VOO, VGT, XLK and QQQM, and how the concentration has moved since 2020.

  17 Sept 2026 5 min ETF Analysis

• XLC vs VOX: The Communication-Services Sector — Where Big Tech Hides in Plain Sight

  XLC and VOX both label themselves "communication services," but the sector is functionally a large-cap growth vehicle: Meta, Alphabet, and Netflix dominate...

  15 Aug 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• CIBR vs BUG vs HACK: Cybersecurity ETFs — Where the Holdings and Fees Diverge

  All three funds sell the same story — pure-play cybersecurity exposure — but their five-year realized returns span a wide range (7.2% to 14.7% CAGR), and...

  09 Aug 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• ARKK vs QQQ: Disruptive Innovation vs the Nasdaq-100 — What a Full Cycle Revealed

  Over the trailing five years QQQ compounded at 15.6% annually while ARKK compounded at −8.1% — the two funds did not just diverge in degree, they diverged...

  03 Aug 2026 10 min ETF Analysis

• EWY vs EWT vs KWEB: The Geography of the AI Chip Trade

  "Korea," "Taiwan," and "China internet" are marketing labels; under the hood, EWY is largely a memory-chip bet, EWT is a TSMC-centric logic-foundry bet, and...

  27 Jul 2026 9 min Macro & Markets

• How Much ETF Overlap Is Too Much? Measuring Redundancy in a Long-Term Core

  Holding VOO, QQQ, and VGT together does not add diversification — it stacks three different wrappers around the same mega-cap names, so the second and third...

  07 Jul 2026 9 min Investment Framework

• VGT vs XLK: Two Large Technology ETFs — Where the 0.10% Fee Gap Goes

  The fee gap is one basis point (VGT 0.09%, XLK 0.08%), not the ten the headline framing usually implies — cost is not where these two funds actually...

  02 Jul 2026 8 min ETF Analysis

• VGT vs QQQ: Tech Sector vs Nasdaq-100 — How Different Are They Really?

  VGT is a pure GICS Information Technology sector fund; QQQ is the Nasdaq-100, a multi-sector index that excludes some of the names most people assume are...

  11 Jun 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• IGV vs WCLD vs QQQ: Breaking Down the 'Tech Beta' Stack

  IGV, WCLD, and QQQ are sold as "tech ETFs" but they are not interchangeable. QQQ is a diversified large-cap growth index, IGV is a concentrated software...

  03 Jun 2026 13 min ETF Analysis