VIG 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.

VIG's largest investment is Broadcom Inc at 5.18% of net assets. Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp follow; the three together are 13.22%. Ten companies are 33.46% of the fund; the other 327 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, VIG behaves like 57.1 holdings against a median of 42.4 — close to the median. Across 27 quarterly filings VIG has held roughly steady since 2019-10-31 (51.1 then, 59.7 now). Between the 2026-01-31 and 2026-04-30 filings 17 positions were added and 24 dropped; 6.8% 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 2019-10-31 and 2026-04-30, VIG went from behaving like 51.1 equally weighted positions to 59.7 — 17% more, while its top ten went from 34.89% to 32.52% 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 337 positions in VIG's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: VIG.csv.gz.

Share of VIG'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 VIG'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: VIG.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-07-31, $8m was out to 1 borrower.

The filing reports no cash collateral position against this loan. Collateral taken in a form the fund does not hold as a position does not appear in N-PORT, so this is silence rather than absence. What the collateral figure can and cannot show. Every quarter VIG has filed, with each borrower: VIG.json · all funds.

341 positions became 334: 17 added (2.0% of the fund at the later date), 24 dropped (1.5% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 6.8%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of VIG compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: Gilead Sciences Inc (0.73%), American Electric Power Co Inc (0.33%), Martin Marietta Materials Inc (0.17%), Archer-Daniels-Midland Co (0.16%), Agilent Technologies Inc (0.15%), Sunbelt Rentals Holdings Inc (0.14%). Gone: Comcast Corp (0.49%), Target Corp (0.22%), Paychex Inc (0.15%), Hershey Co/The (0.13%), Genuine Parts Co (0.09%), HP Inc (0.08%).

99.72% equity, 0.28% 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 $124.65B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Financing leg as filed: the fund pays OBFR01 + 0% on $656M 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 VIG (57.1). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 009 Expense ratio
• 009 Maximum drawdown
• 009 Standard deviation
• 009 Total return
• 006 Factor exposure
• 003 Duration
• 003 Beta

• SCHD Holdings: 99 Stocks, the Top 10 at 44%, and What It Actually Adds to a VOO Portfolio

  What the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF held on 31 May 2026 from its SEC Form N-PORT filing: all 99 stocks with weights, Qualcomm 6.7%, Texas Instruments 5.9%, UnitedHealth 5.1%; the top ten are 43.6% and the fund behaves like 32 equal holdings. Then the question people are really asking — 92% of SCHD's money sits in companies VOO already owns, so what does holding both change? The overlap arithmetic answers it.

  18 Sept 2026 6 min ETF Analysis

• DGRO vs SCHD: Two Dividend-Growth Approaches — Breadth vs Concentration

  DGRO holds 400+ names with a lower 1.96% yield and a growth lean; SCHD holds roughly 100 with a 3.25% yield and a sharper value-quality tilt — same...

  05 Jul 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• VYM vs SCHD: High Yield vs Dividend Quality — Two Different Bets on Income

  VYM and SCHD both market themselves as dividend funds, but they are built on different screens — VYM ranks the broad market by forward yield; SCHD filters...

  21 Jun 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• SCHD vs JEPI: Dividend Growth vs Covered-Call Income — Which Belongs in a Long-Term Core?

  JEPI pays more than twice SCHD's yield (8.5% vs 3.3%), but over the trailing five years SCHD delivered the higher total return (8.4% vs 7.3% CAGR). JEPI's...

  09 Jun 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• DIVZ vs SCHD vs NOBL: Three 'Quality Dividend' Approaches Compared

  Three funds, three different definitions of "quality dividend": SCHD screens on financial strength plus yield, NOBL filters by 25+ years of consecutive...

  01 Jun 2026 11 min ETF Analysis

• NOBL vs. DGRW: Dividend Aristocrats vs. AI-Filtered Quality Dividend Growth

  Over the past five years, DGRW returned 11.8% annualized versus NOBL's 5.7% — a 6.1-point gap, with DGRW showing slightly lower volatility and drawdown....

  13 May 2026 10 min ETF Analysis

• AVUV vs. SYLD: Deep Value Small-Cap vs. AI-Driven Shareholder Yield Selection

  AVUV is a small-cap-value factor sleeve built on the Fama-French academic playbook. SYLD is an all-cap rules-based screen on dividends, buybacks, and debt...

  07 May 2026 11 min ETF Analysis

• SCHD vs. DIVZ: Traditional Dividend Growth vs. AI-Enhanced Yield Strategy

  Over the trailing five years DIVZ outpaced SCHD by roughly 90 bp per year on total return, with lower realized volatility — but at roughly ten times the...

  03 May 2026 11 min ETF Analysis

• SCHD vs VIG: A Quantitative Analysis of Dividend Quality Factors

  VIG outpaced SCHD by roughly 160 basis points per year over the trailing five years (10.3% vs 8.7% CAGR), driven by its broader sector reach and...

  28 Apr 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• SCHD and the Power of Dividend Discipline

  SCHD is not a yield product — it is a quality screen (return on equity, cash flow / debt, five-year dividend growth) that happens to express itself through...

  20 Feb 2026 9 min ETF Analysis