Fund index
VPU
6 articles on this site analyse VPU — 3 of them head-on.
Measured concentration
as of 2026-05-31VPU reports 69 positions, but the weights make it behave like about 24.1 equally weighted ones. Computed by this site from the fund's SEC Form N-PORT filing — see what this measure does not tell you and the full table.
The same filing says what kind of price those positions carry: 99.98% of VPU is held at a quoted market price, across 2 issuer countries . Comparisons across every fund are in the valuation table, and what a low share does and does not mean is worth reading before drawing a conclusion from it.
Every filing since 2019
27Between 2019-11-30 and 2026-05-31, VPU went from behaving like 24.1 equally weighted positions to 24.1 — 0% more, while its top ten went from 52.96% to 52.49% of net assets. Read across the funds on the concentration-over-time table.
| Period | Holdings | Effective | Top 10 | Largest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-31 | 69 | 24.1 | 52.49% | 11.79% |
| 2026-02-28 | 71 | 24 | 52.16% | 11.92% |
| 2025-11-30 | 72 | 23.9 | 53.17% | 11.49% |
| 2025-08-31 | 72 | 25 | 52.29% | 10.32% |
| 2025-05-31 | 71 | 24.5 | 52.17% | 10.56% |
| 2025-02-28 | 73 | 24.5 | 51.67% | 10.86% |
| 2024-11-30 | 72 | 23.9 | 52.9% | 11.66% |
| 2024-08-31 | 69 | 22.3 | 53.39% | 13.06% |
| 2024-05-31 | 69 | 21.7 | 54.1% | 13.64% |
| 2024-02-29 | 67 | 24.4 | 52.37% | 11.03% |
| 2023-11-30 | 68 | 24 | 52.08% | 11.55% |
| 2023-08-31 | 68 | 22.8 | 52.19% | 13.09% |
| 2023-05-31 | 66 | 22.1 | 52.87% | 13.82% |
| 2023-02-28 | 66 | 23 | 52.48% | 13.16% |
| 2022-11-30 | 69 | 22 | 52.58% | 14.3% |
| 2022-08-31 | 68 | 21.6 | 54.19% | 13.91% |
| 2022-05-31 | 68 | 23.1 | 53.68% | 12.39% |
| 2022-02-28 | 69 | 21.9 | 53.75% | 13.89% |
| 2021-11-30 | 66 | 19.7 | 55.25% | 15.89% |
| 2021-08-31 | 66 | 20.5 | 55.27% | 14.86% |
| 2021-05-31 | 68 | 21.9 | 54.4% | 13.54% |
| 2021-02-28 | 68 | 20.3 | 54.7% | 15.25% |
| 2020-11-30 | 68 | 20.2 | 56.11% | 14.6% |
| 2020-08-31 | 68 | 20.3 | 56.03% | 14.71% |
| 2020-05-31 | 70 | 21.4 | 55.62% | 13.36% |
| 2020-02-29 | 70 | 22.7 | 54.28% | 12.49% |
| 2019-11-30 | 71 | 24.1 | 52.96% | 11.28% |
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.
Most often compared against
4Measures applied to it
6All articles
6-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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...
-
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....
-
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...
Mentions are detected across the full text of every article, so an appearance may be a passing comparison rather than the subject. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell — see the disclaimer.