ETF Overlap Figures (253 Pairs)

This canonical dataset ranks every pair among 23 US-listed ETFs by full-holdings weight overlap. Each percentage sums the smaller normalized weight for every shared security after all funds pass holdings-count, provider-weight, and retained-coverage publication checks.

Dataset generated 2026-08-25 · Guardfolio Research · Full matrix view

Canonical weight-based overlap percentages for 23 US-listed ETFs, computed from every reported non-cash holding after fund-level quality checks.

At a glance

99.83%
Highest overlap (QQQ vs QQQM)
253
Unique ETF pairs
70
Pairs with no shared securities
23
ETFs in dataset

Top 10 highest-overlap pairs

  1. 1QQQ vs QQQM99.83%
  2. 2IVV vs SPY97.53%
  3. 3SPY vs VOO96.13%
  4. 4IVV vs VOO95.63%
  5. 5ITOT vs VTI94.66%
  6. 6FXAIX vs VOO93.44%
  7. 7FXAIX vs IVV92.21%
  8. 8FXAIX vs SPY91.95%
  9. 9ITOT vs IVV88.74%
  10. 10VOO vs VTI88.51%

All 253 pairs (sorted by overlap)

ETF pairWeight overlapShared securities
QQQ vs QQQM99.83%104
IVV vs SPY97.53%486
SPY vs VOO96.13%489
IVV vs VOO95.63%490
ITOT vs VTI94.66%2336
FXAIX vs VOO93.44%499
FXAIX vs IVV92.21%490
FXAIX vs SPY91.95%488
ITOT vs IVV88.74%505
VOO vs VTI88.51%502
SPY vs VTI87.46%489
IVV vs VTI87.03%490
ITOT vs VOO86.83%490
ITOT vs SPY86.53%486
FXAIX vs VTI85.90%497
FXAIX vs ITOT85.04%490
VGT vs XLK78.74%72
IWF vs VUG75.80%111
VEA vs VXUS72.28%3878
VTV vs VYM70.43%198
VIG vs VYM60.86%209
QQQ vs VUG58.59%57
QQQM vs VUG58.53%57
IWF vs QQQ58.12%61
IWF vs QQQM58.07%61
FXAIX vs IWF57.71%173
VOO vs VUG57.11%122
SPY vs VUG56.94%122
IVV vs IWF56.89%179
FXAIX vs VUG56.45%120
IWF vs SPY56.04%172
IWF vs VOO55.82%172
IVV vs VUG55.80%118
VGT vs VUG55.61%50
VUG vs XLK54.67%41
QQQ vs XLK54.60%35
QQQM vs XLK54.51%35
FXAIX vs QQQ54.40%87
FXAIX vs QQQM54.39%87
ITOT vs IWF53.74%351
QQQ vs VOO53.63%87
QQQM vs VOO53.62%87
QQQ vs SPY53.60%87
QQQM vs SPY53.60%87
IVV vs QQQ53.41%86
IVV vs QQQM53.41%86
IWF vs VGT53.09%92
IWF vs VTI52.62%344
QQQ vs VGT52.11%38
QQQM vs VGT52.06%38
VTI vs VUG51.78%146
VIG vs VTV51.71%123
IWF vs XLK50.92%47
ITOT vs VUG50.68%141
ITOT vs QQQ47.73%92
ITOT vs QQQM47.73%92
QQQ vs VTI47.60%92
QQQM vs VTI47.60%92
IJR vs IWM47.07%541
VOO vs VTV43.64%297
IVV vs VTV42.84%290
SPY vs VTV42.80%287
VIG vs VOO41.24%170
FXAIX vs VTV41.20%293
SPY vs VIG40.55%164
IVV vs VIG40.20%162
FXAIX vs VIG39.89%167
VTI vs VTV39.09%308
VIG vs VTI39.08%332
ITOT vs VTV38.33%300
ITOT vs VIG37.96%316
FXAIX vs VGT37.38%72
FXAIX vs XLK37.38%72
SPY vs XLK37.15%73
IVV vs VGT37.10%73
SPY vs VGT36.81%72
IVV vs XLK36.76%72
VGT vs VOO36.62%74
VOO vs XLK36.30%72
VOO vs VYM35.43%255
ITOT vs VGT34.90%300
SPY vs VYM34.68%249
IVV vs VYM34.66%251
VGT vs VTI33.97%314
VTI vs VYM33.80%582
FXAIX vs VYM33.27%252
ITOT vs VYM33.08%574
ITOT vs XLK32.62%72
VTI vs XLK31.80%71
IWF vs VIG30.57%63
QQQ vs VIG30.07%28
QQQM vs VIG30.06%28
VWO vs VXUS27.57%4819
VIG vs VUG26.89%34
VGT vs VIG24.65%26
VIG vs XLK24.26%18
DVY vs SCHD23.37%30
SCHD vs VYM21.45%78
DVY vs VYM20.34%98
QQQ vs VTV18.11%39
QQQM vs VTV18.11%39
SCHD vs VTV17.76%40
DVY vs VTV17.53%57
QQQ vs VYM15.01%28
QQQM vs VYM15.00%28
SCHD vs VIG14.36%33
IWF vs VYM13.00%78
VGT vs VYM12.82%30
VYM vs XLK12.36%19
VGT vs VTV11.83%27
IWF vs VTV11.77%75
VTV vs XLK10.85%23
DVY vs VIG8.88%26
DVY vs IVV8.80%69
DVY vs VOO8.34%67
DVY vs ITOT8.16%100
SCHD vs SPY8.10%46
IVV vs SCHD8.09%46
DVY vs SPY8.04%66
SCHD vs VOO7.96%46
DVY vs VTI7.72%98
VUG vs VYM7.66%17
FXAIX vs SCHD7.63%46
ITOT vs SCHD7.45%96
SCHD vs VTI7.32%95
DVY vs FXAIX6.67%65
QQQ vs SCHD5.10%8
QQQM vs SCHD5.10%8
IWM vs VGT4.97%161
ITOT vs IWM4.25%1391
IWM vs VTI4.01%1797
SCHD vs XLK3.56%4
VTV vs VUG3.34%22
IWF vs SCHD3.26%15
IJR vs VGT3.10%69
IJR vs ITOT2.64%598
IWM vs VYM2.57%189
IJR vs VTI2.44%589
DVY vs IJR2.33%7
SCHD vs VGT2.28%4
DVY vs QQQ2.19%6
DVY vs QQQM2.18%6
IJR vs VYM2.01%152
IWM vs SCHD1.47%33
IJR vs SCHD1.31%24
DVY vs IWM1.14%6
DVY vs VGT1.05%3
IWM vs VIG1.02%86
SCHD vs VUG0.78%4
DVY vs IWF0.69%7
IJR vs VIG0.69%51
QQQ vs VEA0.64%4
QQQM vs VEA0.64%4
QQQ vs VXUS0.63%5
QQQM vs VXUS0.63%5
VTI vs VXUS0.41%8
VEA vs VUG0.34%3
IJR vs IWF0.29%15
VTI vs VWO0.27%2
QQQ vs VWO0.26%1
QQQM vs VWO0.26%1
DVY vs XLK0.25%2
VEA vs VGT0.20%1
IWF vs VWO0.17%1
VEA vs VIG0.16%3
IWF vs IWM0.15%1
VUG vs VXUS0.15%2
IJR vs IVV0.14%1
IVV vs IWM0.14%1
IWF vs VXUS0.13%3
VEA vs VTI0.13%5
VIG vs VXUS0.11%3
ITOT vs VEA0.10%3
ITOT vs VXUS0.10%4
IWF vs VEA0.06%2
IWM vs VEA0.06%6
IWM vs VXUS0.06%7
VEA vs VTV0.06%2
VTV vs VXUS0.06%2
VEA vs VWO0.05%7
IWM vs VWO0.01%1
VWO vs VYM0.01%1
VXUS vs VYM0.01%2
BND vs DVY0.00%0
BND vs FXAIX0.00%0
BND vs IJR0.00%0
BND vs ITOT0.00%0
BND vs IVV0.00%0
BND vs IWF0.00%0
BND vs IWM0.00%0
BND vs QQQ0.00%0
BND vs QQQM0.00%0
BND vs SCHD0.00%0
BND vs SPY0.00%0
BND vs VEA0.00%0
BND vs VGT0.00%0
BND vs VIG0.00%0
BND vs VOO0.00%0
BND vs VTI0.00%0
BND vs VTV0.00%0
BND vs VUG0.00%0
BND vs VWO0.00%0
BND vs VXUS0.00%0
BND vs VYM0.00%0
BND vs XLK0.00%0
DVY vs VEA0.00%0
DVY vs VUG0.00%0
DVY vs VWO0.00%0
DVY vs VXUS0.00%1
FXAIX vs IJR0.00%0
FXAIX vs IWM0.00%0
FXAIX vs VEA0.00%0
FXAIX vs VWO0.00%0
FXAIX vs VXUS0.00%1
IJR vs QQQ0.00%0
IJR vs QQQM0.00%0
IJR vs SPY0.00%0
IJR vs VEA0.00%0
IJR vs VOO0.00%0
IJR vs VTV0.00%0
IJR vs VUG0.00%0
IJR vs VWO0.00%0
IJR vs VXUS0.00%0
IJR vs XLK0.00%0
ITOT vs VWO0.00%0
IVV vs VEA0.00%0
IVV vs VWO0.00%0
IVV vs VXUS0.00%1
IWM vs QQQ0.00%0
IWM vs QQQM0.00%0
IWM vs SPY0.00%0
IWM vs VOO0.00%0
IWM vs VTV0.00%0
IWM vs VUG0.00%0
IWM vs XLK0.00%0
SCHD vs VEA0.00%0
SCHD vs VWO0.00%0
SCHD vs VXUS0.00%0
SPY vs VEA0.00%0
SPY vs VWO0.00%0
SPY vs VXUS0.00%1
VEA vs VOO0.00%1
VEA vs VYM0.00%0
VEA vs XLK0.00%0
VGT vs VWO0.00%0
VGT vs VXUS0.00%0
VIG vs VWO0.00%0
VOO vs VWO0.00%0
VOO vs VXUS0.00%1
VTV vs VWO0.00%0
VUG vs VWO0.00%0
VWO vs XLK0.00%0
VXUS vs XLK0.00%0

Methodology

Complete non-cash holdings from licensed ETF holdings feeds are consolidated by ISIN, then CUSIP, then ticker. Pair overlap is the sum of the lesser normalized fund weight for every shared security.

Fund holdings change. Full-holdings overlap reflects the provider date recorded for each fund. Sector weights are a separately dated 2026-05-19 reference retained for context. Results are educational and do not measure return correlation or guarantee diversification.

Every fund passed the publication gate: at least 20 valid non-cash holdings, provider weights from 95% to 105%, and at least 97% retained coverage. Holdings are normalized to 100% before pair comparison. Per-fund dates and coverage are in the public JSON. Content hash: fa6fd10daad260ace10bcbf4100605c34e22b2ac30cac45d578b938736fdb48c.

Compare any two funds live on the free ETF overlap checker. Overlap does not measure return correlation, tax consequences, or future diversification.

Check overlap across your whole portfolio

Two-ETF lookup is free. Full portfolio look-through on Guardfolio.

Try the overlap checker