Weight Overlap
32.7% shared by weight
Guardfolio Research · ETF Overlap
QQQ vs VOO: Hidden Redundancy in Two Popular ETFs
VOO already owns most of QQQ's leadership names. The pair overlaps by 32.7% by weight and shares 9 of the same top-10 holdings, so adding QQQ usually means more mega-cap growth concentration rather than meaningfully different diversification.
Shared Top-10 Names
9 of 10 shared top names
Cost Difference
VOO 0.03% vs QQQ 0.20%
Risk Snapshot
ConcentrationHigh
OverlapHigh
CorrelationHigh
DrawdownModerate
Read This As
VOO plus QQQ is usually not broad market plus innovation. It is broad market with the same mega-cap growth winners pushed to even higher weights.
Core Insight
This pair usually adds weight more than it adds breadth
VOO already holds the S&P 500's dominant mega-cap winners. QQQ mostly owns that same leadership basket at higher weights and with no financials. So the combination does not meaningfully broaden a VOO portfolio. It mostly increases the portfolio's dependence on the same large-cap growth regime that was already driving returns.
Overlap Logic
Why QQQ plus VOO feels more diversified than it really is
VOO tracks the S&P 500. QQQ tracks the Nasdaq-100. Those labels sound different, but 9 of QQQ's top 10 holdings are already in VOO's top 10. Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Broadcom, and Tesla are doing the heavy lifting in both funds. That is why the overlap reaches roughly 32.7% by weight even before you look beyond the top 10.
The sector picture tells the same story. VOO has 31.5% in technology and 9.5% in communication services. QQQ has 51% in technology and 16% in communication services. Equal-weight the two and those sectors dominate the blend. So the investor who thinks they are combining a balanced core with a separate growth sleeve is often just building a more concentrated version of the same mega-cap trade.
Top Holdings Side by Side
The same 9 names dominate both funds
VOO's only unique top-10 holding is Berkshire Hathaway. QQQ's only unique top-10 holding is Costco. Everything else overlaps, with QQQ simply assigning bigger weights to the same mega-cap growth stocks.
| # | VOO holding | VOO wt. | QQQ holding | QQQ wt. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AAPL — Apple | 7.0% | AAPL — Apple | 9.0% |
| 2 | MSFT — Microsoft | 6.5% | MSFT — Microsoft | 8.0% |
| 3 | NVDA — NVIDIA | 6.0% | NVDA — NVIDIA | 7.5% |
| 4 | AMZN — Amazon | 3.7% | AMZN — Amazon | 5.5% |
| 5 | META — Meta | 2.5% | META — Meta | 5.0% |
| 6 | GOOGL — Alphabet A | 2.0% | AVGO — Broadcom | 4.5% |
| 7 | AVGO — Broadcom | 1.8% | GOOG — Alphabet C | 3.2% |
| 8 | GOOG — Alphabet C | 1.7% | GOOGL — Alphabet A | 3.0% |
| 9 | TSLA — Tesla | 1.5% | TSLA — Tesla | 3.0% |
| 10 | BRK.B — Berkshire ✦ VOO only | 1.4% | COST — Costco ✦ QQQ only | 1.8% |
Source: Guardfolio ETF dataset built from Vanguard and Invesco fund fact sheets · Q1 2026 holdings
Sector Breakdown
A 50-50 blend still ends up dominated by tech and communications
VOO has real sector breadth that QQQ lacks, especially in financials. But once QQQ is added, the combined sleeve still leans heavily toward technology and communication-services leadership.
| Sector | VOO | QQQ | 50/50 blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 31.5% | 51.0% | 41.3% |
| Communication Services | 9.5% | 16.0% | 12.8% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 10.5% | 15.0% | 12.8% |
| Financial Services | 13.5% | 0.0% | 6.8% |
| Healthcare | 11.0% | 6.0% | 8.5% |
| Industrials | 8.0% | 5.0% | 6.5% |
| Consumer Staples | 5.5% | 5.0% | 5.3% |
| Energy | 3.5% | 0.5% | 2.0% |
| Utilities | 2.5% | 1.0% | 1.8% |
| Real Estate | 2.0% | 0.0% | 1.0% |
| Materials | 2.0% | 0.5% | 1.3% |
Source: Guardfolio ETF dataset · Q1 2026 sector weights
What To Check
Four dimensions that matter more than owning two fund wrappers
Top holding duplication
If Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta, and Alphabet still dominate both funds, effective concentration rises even if total holdings look broad.
Tech + communications combined
Even a 50-50 blend puts more than half the sleeve into technology and communication-services sensitivity.
Cost of the growth tilt
VOO charges 0.03% while QQQ charges 0.20%. The higher fee only makes sense if the extra growth concentration is intentional and desired.
Stress behavior
In growth-led selloffs, both funds can weaken together because the same names remain the main return drivers.
A useful shortcut: if adding QQQ does not materially change the kind of companies, sectors, or macro sensitivity in the account, then it is probably increasing conviction in the same trade rather than improving diversification.
Concrete Example
Why investors underestimate this pair
Most investors do not buy QQQ and VOO because they want to duplicate exposure. They buy them because one sounds innovative and one sounds diversified. The problem is that the account does not respond to the story attached to the ticker. It responds to the underlying holdings. If the same top names still explain a disproportionate share of returns, then the pair is closer to “reinforced large-cap growth” than “broadly diversified equity.”
This is also why overlap can feel harmless in a bull market. Redundancy is easiest to tolerate while the repeated names are working. It becomes visible only when leadership reverses and several “different” funds all weaken together.
Interpretation
When this pair is reasonable and when it deserves scrutiny
Overlap is not automatically a problem. Some investors deliberately overweight a style or factor. The problem starts when the overlap is accidental. If the portfolio is meant to be diversified but its economic exposure is still clustered in the same names, then the investor is taking more concentrated risk than intended.
QQQ plus VOO is not automatically wrong. It can be an intentional style tilt. But it should be understood as a concentration choice, not assumed to be broad diversification by default.
Guardfolio Benchmark
How Guardfolio would frame this pair in a portfolio review
Overlap above ~30%
This pair sits around 32.7% by weight. At that level the two funds should be reviewed as one connected large-cap growth sleeve, not two independent diversifiers.
Same top holdings in both funds
If Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, and Alphabet still dominate the combined exposure, the pair is reinforcing the same leadership basket.
Growth and tech sleeve above 25%
Once the broader portfolio is already heavy in the same regime, this pair becomes a more material concentration decision.
No written reason to hold both
If the investor cannot explain what QQQ is adding beyond “more growth,” the duplication is usually accidental rather than strategic.
FAQ
Common questions about QQQ and VOO
What is the overlap between QQQ and VOO?
QQQ and VOO overlap by roughly 32.7% by weight and share 9 of the same top-10 names. The overlap is concentrated in the exact mega-cap names most likely to move both funds together.
Is holding both QQQ and VOO good diversification?
Usually not by default. VOO already owns QQQ's biggest companies, so adding QQQ mainly increases the weight of the same growth leaders rather than adding a new risk source.
What does QQQ add to VOO?
QQQ adds a stronger Nasdaq mega-cap growth tilt, removes financials, and raises technology and communication-services exposure materially. That can be intentional, but it should be treated as a concentration choice rather than assumed diversification.
Related Reading