VGT vs SMH: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VGT and SMH are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VGT is Vanguard Information Technology ETF, while SMH is VanEck Semiconductor ETF. VGT is broader by holdings count, with 322 positions versus 27 for SMH. SMH is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VGT ahead on AIQ Score, 48 versus 39.
What is the main difference between VGT and SMH?
VGT and SMH both concentrate in Technology, at 99% and 100% of assets, and 40% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | VGT | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 322 | 27 |
| Top-10 concentration | 62.4% | 71.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.39% | 0.2% |
| Average volume | 4,245,287 | 9,343,290 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +28.2% | +59.9% |
| YTD return | +27.6% | +51.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +18.4% | +33.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 39.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -24.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -45.3% |
| Beta | 1.71 | 2.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 1.88 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 48/100 | 39/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 32/100 | 15/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 63/100 | 29/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Information Technology ETF vs VanEck Semiconductor ETF
VGT leads
VGT leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VGT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Information Technology ETF
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VGT over SMH, 48 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 2026. VGT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. VGT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VGT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Information Technology ETF and VanEck Semiconductor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VGT vs SMH: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | VGT | SMH | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.09% | 0.35% | VGT |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 322 | 27 | VGT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 62.4% | 71.6% | VGT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.39% | 0.2% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -45.3% | VGT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 25% | 39.7% | VGT |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare VGT and SMH against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience63 vs 29VGT +34
- Momentum32 vs 15VGT +17
- Value32 vs 31Even
- Quality71 vs 71Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VGT. VGT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
VGT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VGT and SMH both carry a full feed there.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | VGT | SMH | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 322 | 27 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,245,287 | 9,343,290 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 39.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -24.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 1.28 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.71 | 2.38 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
VGT and SMH share 39.82% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings.
298 holdings are unique to VGT, and 4 holdings are unique to SMH. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SMH is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 71.61% of the fund, against 62.39% for VGT (27 holdings vs 322). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | VGT | SMH | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 17.16% | 22.43% | 17.16% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.21% | 5.9% | 4.21% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 3.82% | 5.64% | 3.82% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.18% | 5.73% | 3.18% |
| AMATApplied Materials Inc | 1.69% | 4.23% | 1.69% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 1.65% | 4.34% | 1.65% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 1.54% | 4.29% | 1.54% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 1.07% | 4.25% | 1.07% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VGT adds that SMH doesn’t
| Holding | VGT | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 16.26% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 10.96% | Not held |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.91% | Not held |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks Inc | 1.16% | Not held |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.14% | Not held |
| ORCLOracle Corp | 0.9% | Not held |
What SMH adds that VGT doesn’t
| Holding | SMH | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co L | 9.77% | Not held |
| ASMLAsml Holding Nv | 5.01% | Not held |
| INTCIntel Corp | 4.34% | 1.65% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 4.29% | 1.54% |
| ADIAnalog Devices Inc | 4.26% | 0.77% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 4.25% | 1.07% |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
VGT vs SMH: five-year payout growth
SMH grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 8.02% a year against VGT's 0.91%. SMH: The 2020 payout was 64.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SMH: The payout jumped 52.6% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | VGT | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 0.91% | 8.02% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.364 | $0.751 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.381 | $1.105 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #126 of 138 | #69 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VGT | 48 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 32 vs 31 |
| Technicals | VGT | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day 10.9% vs 6.5% |
| Risk Resilience | VGT | Risk Resilience 63 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of VGT and SMH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on VGT.
How the comparison changed
100 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20VGT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VGT +9
- 48 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- VGT +11
- 49 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- VGT +2
- 58 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- VGT +9
- 57 vs 48
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when VGT moved ahead of SMH.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SMH
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VGT leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.71%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.89%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1SMH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to VGT's edge.
- 2SMH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VGT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
VGT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | VGT | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | -7.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.9% | -10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4% | -6.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19% | 17.6% |
| Year to date | 27.6% | 51.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.2% | 59.9% |
Technicals
VGT has the stronger structure| Metric | VGT | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35 | 27.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.2 | 22.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.9% | 6.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.8% | 26.2% |
Risk
VGT is the more resilient| Metric | VGT | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.71 | 2.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 1.88 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -7.4% | -18.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 39.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VGT and SMH?
VGT and SMH both concentrate in Technology, at 99% and 100% of assets, and 40% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do VGT and SMH overlap?
VGT and SMH share 39.82% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings. 298 holdings are unique to VGT, and 4 holdings are unique to SMH. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VGT or SMH?
VGT holds more positions: 322 versus 27 for SMH.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VGT has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% a year against 0.35% for SMH.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.39% for VGT and 0.2% for SMH.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SMH has been more volatile over the past year, at 39.7% annualized against 25% for VGT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VGT fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -35.1% against -45.3% for SMH.
Compare VGT and SMH with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.