Pair Profile
Tech sector ETF + growth-heavy index ETF
Guardfolio Research · ETF Overlap
VGT vs QQQ: Are You Doubling Up on Tech Risk?
VGT is a pure technology ETF. QQQ is a Nasdaq-100 growth ETF that is already 51% technology. They share Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Broadcom at large weights, and the pair overlaps by roughly 36% by weight. In practice, adding QQQ to VGT usually broadens the story investors tell themselves more than it broadens the actual exposure.
Overlap Signal
~36% overlap by weight · 36 shared holdings
Best Use Case
Explicit same-theme conviction with clear risk limits
Risk Snapshot
ConcentrationHigh
OverlapHigh
CorrelationHigh
DrawdownHigh
Read This As
Different ETF names do not help much if both sleeves are still amplifying the same tech-heavy leadership group.
Core Insight
This pair is usually a concentrated tech sleeve, not a diversified combination
VGT plus QQQ is one of those combinations that sounds more diversified than it is. The labels differ, but once you look through to the holdings, a large share of the pair is still anchored by the same mega-cap technology names. The practical outcome is that many investors are not creating breadth at all. They are building a larger bet on the same technology leadership cluster.
Concrete Comparison
What the overlap data actually says
~36% overlap by weight
This is high enough that the pair should usually be treated as a reinforced technology allocation rather than two separate diversification tools.
36 shared holdings
49% of QQQ's holdings also appear in VGT. The weight impact is concentrated in a few very large names — Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia above all.
Shared top weights dominate
Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, and Broadcom account for a large share of the duplicated exposure.
Different labels, same dependency
VGT is more pure technology, while QQQ includes large non-tech growth names. But the shared leaders still drive much of the pair's behavior.
That is what makes this page different from the SCHD plus VOO case. There, the overlap is modest and the style question matters more. Here, the overlap is already large enough that concentration is the default interpretation.
Top Holdings Side by Side
The same four stocks dominate both funds
Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Broadcom appear in both funds and drive most of the duplicated economic exposure. VGT then stays inside software and semiconductors. QQQ branches out into Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Tesla, and Costco, but that still leaves the shared mega-cap technology core doing much of the work.
| # | VGT holding | VGT wt. | QQQ holding | QQQ wt. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AAPL — Apple | 16.0% | AAPL — Apple | 9.0% |
| 2 | MSFT — Microsoft | 14.0% | MSFT — Microsoft | 8.0% |
| 3 | NVDA — NVIDIA | 13.0% | NVDA — NVIDIA | 7.5% |
| 4 | AVGO — Broadcom | 5.5% | AMZN — Amazon | 5.5% |
| 5 | ORCL — Oracle | 2.5% | META — Meta | 5.0% |
| 6 | CRM — Salesforce | 2.2% | AVGO — Broadcom | 4.5% |
| 7 | ADBE — Adobe | 1.7% | GOOG — Alphabet C | 3.2% |
| 8 | AMD — Advanced Micro Devices | 1.6% | GOOGL — Alphabet A | 3.0% |
| 9 | CSCO — Cisco | 1.4% | TSLA — Tesla | 3.0% |
| 10 | NOW — ServiceNow | 1.4% | COST — Costco | 1.8% |
Source: Guardfolio ETF dataset built from Vanguard and Invesco fund fact sheets · Q1 2026 holdings
Sector Breakdown
A 50-50 blend is still about three-quarters technology
VGT is a pure sector fund. QQQ looks broader, but technology still makes up 51% of it. Equal-weight the two and the combined sleeve still lands at roughly 75.5% technology, with the rest mostly coming from communication services and consumer discretionary growth names.
| Sector | VGT | QQQ | 50/50 blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 100.0% | 51.0% | 75.5% |
| Communication Services | 0.0% | 16.0% | 8.0% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 0.0% | 15.0% | 7.5% |
| Healthcare | 0.0% | 6.0% | 3.0% |
| Consumer Staples | 0.0% | 5.0% | 2.5% |
| Industrials | 0.0% | 5.0% | 2.5% |
| Utilities | 0.0% | 1.0% | 0.5% |
| Materials | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.25% |
| Energy | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.25% |
Source: Guardfolio ETF dataset · Q1 2026 sector weights
What To Check
Where the pair overlaps and where it still differs
Repeated mega-cap tech
Both funds are heavily exposed to Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, and Broadcom, which means the pair's overlap is concentrated in exactly the names most likely to move the sleeve.
VGT is more pure technology
VGT is 100% technology and its top 10 already account for 60% of the fund. Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia alone make up 43%.
QQQ adds large non-tech growth exposure
QQQ brings in names such as Amazon, Tesla, Meta, Alphabet, and Netflix that VGT holds at much smaller weights or not at all.
Cost does not justify the extra duplication
VGT charges 0.10% and QQQ charges 0.20%. The more expensive fund adds some breadth, but much of the extra fee still buys more exposure to names you already own.
A practical shortcut: if your combined top holdings are still dominated by the same four or five mega-cap tech names after adding the second fund, you did not really diversify. You mostly increased conviction in the same leadership basket.
Concrete Example
Why this pair feels broader than it is
The usual story is that VGT gives pure technology exposure and QQQ gives broader innovation exposure, so holding both feels balanced. The problem is that the same companies still dominate both sleeves. If Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Broadcom are already the center of gravity in VGT, then adding QQQ does not dilute that dependency much. It mainly adds another layer of Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, and Tesla on top of a portfolio that was already growth-sensitive.
The test is simple: ask what risk driver you escaped by adding the second fund. If the answer is still “the sleeve rises and falls with the same mega-cap technology cycle,” then the new ETF changed the label mix more than the economic exposure. That does not make the pair wrong. It just makes it a deliberate same-theme bet rather than diversification.
Interpretation
Why this pair usually deserves more scrutiny than investors give it
Unlike a moderate-overlap pair where the style mix can genuinely broaden the portfolio, VGT and QQQ start from a high enough overlap base that the burden of proof flips. The investor should assume this is a concentrated tech sleeve unless the rest of the portfolio clearly offsets it and the role of each fund is explicitly intentional.
There are coherent reasons to hold both. Someone may want VGT as a pure technology core and use QQQ as a way to add adjacent platform and consumer-growth leaders outside the sector classification. But that only works if the rest of the portfolio is built with full awareness that this sleeve is still overwhelmingly a mega-cap growth bet. If the account already owns VOO, VTI, or individual tech stocks, the look-through concentration can rise very quickly.
What Guardfolio Would Flag
The same-theme stacking patterns that usually matter most
Overlap above ~35%
This pair hits 36% by weight. At that level a large share of the pair's economic exposure is reinforcing the same underlying bet rather than adding genuinely different sources of return.
Top holdings dominating both sleeves
If the same names drive both funds, one earnings cycle or valuation reset can hit the pair together.
Tech sector weight above 25% after look-through
Same-theme stacking becomes more dangerous when the portfolio is already leaning heavily on one sector cycle.
No offsetting exposure elsewhere
If the rest of the account does not clearly diversify the pair, the effective result is usually concentrated tech dependency.
Methodology
How to use this page
This page offers an educational overlap interpretation, not a personalized recommendation. It is meant to help investors distinguish between same-theme stacking and true diversification, then verify the duplication with a fund overlap checker.
Related Reading