XLK 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), 4 issuer countries.

XLK's largest investment is Nvidia Corp at 14.65% of net assets. Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp follow; the three together are 35.87%. Ten companies are 64.47% of the fund; the other 67 share the rest. Among the 721 equity funds measured here, XLK behaves like 16.3 holdings against a median of 42.4 — 2.6 times more concentrated than the median. Across 28 quarterly filings XLK has become less concentrated: it behaved like 12 at 2019-09-30 and 16.3 at 2026-06-30. Between the 2026-03-31 and 2026-06-30 filings 2 positions were added and 1 dropped; 13.1% 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 2019-09-30 and 2026-06-30, XLK went from behaving like 12 equally weighted positions to 16.3 — 36% more, while its top ten went from 64.58% to 64.47% 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 77 positions in XLK's Form N-PORT, weight as a share of net assets, securities-lending collateral excluded. Every position, every quarter: XLK.csv.gz.

Share of XLK'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 XLK's own filings, 84 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 84 months, which is roughly the distributions. Every month with the filing it came from: XLK.json · all funds.

The fund lends its holdings, and Item B.4.a of the filing names every firm holding them. At 2026-06-30, $262m was out to 3 borrowers, 0.21% of net assets. The largest, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, held 61.1% of it.

Cash collateral reported against the loan: 0.14% of net assets, 66.3% 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 XLK has filed, with each borrower: XLK.json · all funds.

74 positions became 75: 2 added (1.8% 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: 13.1%. Positions are matched on identifiers, so a security whose identifier changed shows as one drop and one add. Every filing of XLK compared this way, as a feed: changes.xml · all funds: filings received.

New: Marvell Technology Inc (1.45%), Flex Ltd (0.33%). Gone: EPAM Systems Inc (0.07%).

99.81% equity, 0.19% 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 $123.91B. 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 XLK (16.3). Same filings, same arithmetic. Position in this list says nothing about which fund is better.

• 006 Expense ratio
• 006 Maximum drawdown
• 006 Duration
• 005 Standard deviation
• 003 Beta

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

• VTV vs XLK: owning both is less diversified than VTV alone (13% overlap) 2026-10-07
• VTI vs XLK: owning both is less diversified than VTI alone (33% overlap) 2026-10-06
• VOO vs XLK: owning both is less diversified than VOO alone (37% overlap) 2026-10-05
• IVV vs XLK: owning both is less diversified than IVV alone (38% overlap) 2026-10-04
• VUG vs XLK: owning both is less diversified than VUG alone (54% overlap) 2026-10-02
• Is QQQ + XLK more diversified than QQQ alone? No — 57% overlap 2026-09-22

• 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

• Berkshire Hathaway Holdings, Q2 2026: 29 Stocks That Behave Like 8.6

  The document behind every search for "Warren Buffett's portfolio" is Berkshire Hathaway's Form 13F. The one for 30 June 2026, filed 14 August, lists 29 US-listed positions worth $299.3 billion. Weighted by value they behave like 8.6 equal holdings; the top ten are 88.5%. What changed against the March filing, share by share, and what a 13F cannot tell you.

  15 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• BOTZ vs. ROBO vs. AIQ: Three AI & Robotics ETFs Compared

  The three funds share a marketing category but not a portfolio: AIQ's 5-year CAGR of 17.2% comes mostly from mega-cap semiconductors and hyperscalers, not...

  30 May 2026 10 min ETF Analysis