XLK vs VGT vs FTEC: Holdings Overlap, Concentration, and Basket Analysis

This guide answers a practical question: how do the XLK, VGT, and FTEC baskets differ in scope, holdings, and concentration? It does not rank recent returns or recommend a ticker. It explains why several technology ETFs can repeat exposure to the same large semiconductor and software companies, how each benchmark defines its eligible companies, and what the stated fee differences amount to in dollars.

“Overlap” can mean the number of securities two funds hold in common, or the share of each portfolio invested in those common securities. These are different measures. The latest filings can be displayed side by side, but they should not be used to calculate a precise same-day common-security count when their dates differ. Index changes, market prices, corporate actions, and fund trades can change a basket between reporting dates.

XLK seeks to track the Technology Select Sector Index. The index draws from S&P 500 members classified in the Information Technology sector under GICS. Its universe is therefore not every U.S.-listed technology company; it is the large-cap IT slice of the S&P 500. A smaller software or semiconductor company can be absent because it is outside the S&P 500, even if it operates in technology. See the State Street XLK profile and the S&P Technology Select Sector Index overview.

S&P Select Sector indexes use capped market-cap weighting with regular rebalancing. That is not equal weighting: larger companies tend to receive larger weights, while index caps limit how dominant the largest positions can become. The detailed eligibility and weighting rules are in the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology.

VGT tracks the MSCI US Investable Market Information Technology 25/50 Index. FTEC tracks the MSCI USA IMI Information Technology 25/50 Index. The sponsors use slightly different names, but both refer to MSCI U.S. investable-market IT benchmarks spanning large-, mid-, and small-cap companies classified in GICS Information Technology. Their official descriptions are on the Vanguard VGT page, Fidelity ETF page, and MSCI index profile.

The “25/50” label does not mean every holding is capped at exactly 4%. Under MSCI’s rules, a single issuer is limited to 25%, and issuers each above 5% together are limited to 50%, subject to group definitions, buffers, and scheduled index reviews. These are index-level diversification constraints, not a promise that each fund has low concentration or equal weights. See the MSCI 25/50 methodology.

As of September 26, 2026, the newest SEC Form N-PORT holdings reports we identified were dated June 30 for XLK, May 31 for VGT, and July 31 for FTEC. The filings are the XLK report, the Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund report that includes VGT, and the FTEC report. All three are SEC N-PORT portfolio reports, but the funds’ reporting dates do not line up.

Filtering the reported positions to equity securities gives 74 rows for XLK, 317 for VGT, and 281 for FTEC. Those equity positions sum to 99.93%, 99.84%, and 99.80% of net assets, respectively. VGT’s filing is at the Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund series level; VGT is one ETF share class of that fund. We compare the underlying equity basket and its reported weights, but do not describe the whole series’ assets as VGT-only assets.

The date gap is why this guide does not publish an exact three-way overlap count. Holdings, index membership, prices, and weights can change between May 31, June 30, and July 31. Nine tickers appear in the top ten of all three separate snapshots—NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, Micron, AMD, Intel, Cisco, and Lam Research. That is a comparison of three dated top-ten lists, not a claim that the funds had exactly nine common securities on one shared date.

The table ranks equity positions by their share of each fund’s reported net assets. Each column uses its own report date, shown in the header. The ranks should not be read as a simultaneous market comparison.

Totals use the unrounded percentages in the SEC filings and are then rounded to two decimal places. Adding the displayed row values may produce a difference of about 0.01 percentage point. The dates are in the column labels, and the values are snapshots rather than live holdings.

The top three positions alone make up a substantial share of each basket. Even VGT, with the lowest top-ten total in these filings, had 59.36% in its ten largest equity positions. A fund can report hundreds of stocks while still assigning a large share of its assets to a handful of mega-cap companies. XLK’s higher top-ten figure by itself does not establish that it has greater long-term risk: this table does not include returns, volatility, index changes, tracking error, or an investor’s other holdings.

When two funds have equal dollar allocations, a company’s blended weight is the average of its weights in those funds. For example, suppose an account holds $5,000 of XLK and $5,000 of VGT. Using the dated filings above, NVIDIA’s illustrative blended weight is (14.65033% + 16.82153%) ÷ 2 = 15.73593%, or about $1,573.59 of the $10,000 allocation. This is an arithmetic example using different reporting dates, not a current account valuation or a same-date exposure estimate.

More generally, if amounts a, b, and c are invested in funds A, B, and C, and the security’s weights are wA, wB, and wC, the blended weight is (a×wA + b×wB + c×wC) ÷ (a+b+c). Applying this formula to different-date snapshots illustrates weighted averaging; it does not precisely measure the funds’ overlap. A current account calculation needs the account’s fund quantities and holdings measured at a common valuation time.

Owning two or three technology ETFs does not automatically add a new industry or asset class. The two MSCI funds share a broad benchmark approach, and XLK also holds many large U.S. IT companies in that universe. These funds do not target non-technology sectors, international equities, or bonds. To assess diversification, add up exposure to each company and asset class across the whole account instead of counting ticker symbols.

Even when VGT and FTEC follow closely named MSCI 25/50 benchmarks, their reported holdings need not match perfectly. Sponsors can differ in implementation, cash positions, trade timing, corporate-action processing, and sampling. Vanguard says it generally seeks to hold the index securities when practical and may sample when regulatory constraints apply. Fidelity describes a representative-sampling strategy and says it invests at least 80% of assets in securities included in the index. Both are index-tracking methods, not forecasts about individual companies.

XLK follows a different S&P Select Sector benchmark. Its narrower starting universe—S&P 500 members classified as IT—combines with S&P’s capped weighting rules, so its number of positions and top weights can differ from the MSCI IMI funds. There is no single universal definition of a “technology stock.” GICS classifications and the benchmark’s eligible universe determine whether a company enters each index.

Compare the funds in order: benchmark scope, constituent and weighting rules, fund implementation, and the actual holdings reported on a common date. A difference in filing rows alone does not show that one fund failed to track its index. First align the report dates and identify whether the indexes themselves admit different companies.

Sponsor materials list expense ratios of 0.08% for XLK, 0.09% for VGT, and 0.084% for FTEC. These are fund expenses, not the full cost of investing. If a balance stayed at $10,000 for a year, the simple annual amounts would be about $8, $9, and $8.40. On that static balance, VGT is about $1 more than XLK, and FTEC about $0.40 more than XLK.

Actual costs vary with account value, fee changes, bid-ask spreads, trading charges, taxes, account terms, and tracking difference. If the investment value rises or falls, the expense amount changes too. Check the current XLK profile, VGT profile, and FTEC prospectus before relying on a quoted fee.

The SEC snapshots show a structural distinction: XLK focuses on S&P 500 information technology companies, while VGT and FTEC’s MSCI 25/50 benchmarks also reach smaller U.S. IT companies. Nine tickers recur in all three separately dated top-ten lists, and the top-ten totals range from 59.36% to 64.45%. This points to meaningful shared mega-cap exposure, but it is not an exact same-day portfolio-overlap ratio.

This analysis does not calculate correlation, volatility, return forecasts, maximum drawdown, or tax outcomes. Those require separate data and a defined period. Holdings change with index reviews, portfolio trades, cash, corporate actions, and market prices; none of the report dates is a promise of current composition. Recheck the issuers’ latest index descriptions and holdings, and review the combined weight of large IT companies already in the account.