VPU 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: 99.98% at a quoted market price (level 1), one issuer country.

VPU's largest investment is Nextera Energy at 11.79% of net assets. Southern Co and Duke Energy Corp follow; the three together are 24.74%. Ten companies are 52.69% of the fund; the other 58 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, VPU behaves like 23.9 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 1.8 times more concentrated than the median. Across 27 quarterly filings VPU has held roughly steady since 2019-11-30 (24 then, 23.9 now). Between the 2026-02-28 and 2026-05-31 filings 0 positions were added and 1 dropped; 2.3% 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, VPU went from behaving like 24 equally weighted positions to 23.9 — 0% fewer, while its top ten went from 53.12% to 52.69% 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 68 positions in VPU's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: VPU.csv.gz.

Share of VPU'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 VPU'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: VPU.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, $31m was out to 6 borrowers, 0.29% of net assets. The largest, Wells Fargo Securities LLC, held 45.6% of it.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.24% of net assets, 82.6% 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 VPU has filed, with each borrower: VPU.json · all funds.

69 positions became 68: 0 added (0.0% of the fund at the later date), 1 dropped (0.1% at the earlier date). Half the sum of all weight changes, a turnover proxy: 2.3%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of VPU compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

Gone: Clearway Energy Inc (0.08%).

100.0% of VPU is carried at a quoted market price (fair-value level 1). Categories and levels are the filer's, from Form N-PORT; 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 $10.58B. Notional of an interest-rate or currency swap is not equity exposure.

Financing leg as filed: the fund pays OBFR01 + 0% on $40M 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 VPU (23.9). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 006 Expense ratio
• 006 Maximum drawdown
• 005 Duration
• 005 Factor exposure
• 004 Total return
• 003 Standard deviation

• Data Center REITs vs. Infrastructure ETFs: Which One for Consistent Cash Flow?

  The "REITs for income, ETFs for growth" framing collapses on contact with five-year data: SRVR yields 2.6% but delivered just 0.3% annualized total return...

  20 Mar 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• PSCU vs XLU and VPU: What Five Years of Data Say About Small-Cap Utility Exposure

  Over the trailing five years, PSCU (small-cap utilities & communication services) returned roughly 1.5% CAGR versus 9.2% for XLU and 9.0% for VPU — a gap of...

  19 Mar 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• Utilities in a Rate-Cut Cycle: What the AI Power Demand Story Does — and Doesn't — Justify

  The "AI data center demand plus rate cuts equals utility re-rating" thesis is plausible — and largely consensus. Five-year realized data show utility ETFs...

  17 Mar 2026 10 min Macro & Markets

• Infrastructure ETFs in 2026: What XLU, VPU, IFRA, PAVE, and GRID Actually Own

  The "infrastructure" label hides three different factor bets: regulated utilities (XLU, VPU), broad cyclical infrastructure (IFRA), and concentrated...

  16 Mar 2026 10 min ETF Analysis

• VPU vs XLU: A Fee, Liquidity, and Concentration Comparison for Long-Horizon Utility Exposure

  VPU (0.09%) and XLU (0.08%) are functionally near-identical at the top of the basket — the holdings overlap is far more important than the 1 bp fee gap....

  15 Mar 2026 9 min ETF Analysis

• VOO, XLU, IFRA: What 5-Year Data Says About Three Approaches to the AI Power Build-Out

  Over five years, VOO (13.9% CAGR) beat both XLU (9.2%) and IFRA (12.8%) on raw return — the AI tailwind didn't show up in the "picks-and-shovels" trade the...

  14 Mar 2026 8 min ETF Analysis