-
Both funds charge identical expense ratios, but the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF pays a slightly higher dividend yield.
-
VOOG holds more than three times as many shares as MGK, allowing for broader sector diversification.
-
MGK is more concentrated in technology, while VOOG spreads its exposure across technology, communications services and consumer discretionary companies.
-
These 10 stocks could be the next wave of millionaires ›
Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (NYSEMKT:MGK) And Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (NYSEMKT:VOOG) share the same low expense ratio and issuer, but differ in portfolio breadth, sector focus and dividend yield.
Both funds aim to provide investors with exposure to large-cap U.S. growth stocks, but even though CNS focuses on the biggest names in the market, VOOG casts a wider net over the growth segment of the S&P 500. Here’s how these two compare for investors evaluating concentration versus breadth.
|
Metric
|
CNS
|
VOOG
|
|
Issuer
|
Avant-garde
|
Avant-garde
|
|
Spending rate
|
0.07%
|
0.07%
|
|
Return over 1 year (as of December 12, 2025)
|
15.7%
|
17.5%
|
|
Dividend yield
|
0.4%
|
0.5%
|
|
Assets under management
|
$33.0 billion
|
$21.7 billion
|
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated using weekly returns over five years. The 1-year return represents the total return over the last 12 months.
Both funds are equally affordable with matching expense ratios of 0.07%, but VOOG’s yield exceeds that of MGK, offering a slightly higher payout for investors looking for a little higher income.
|
Metric
|
CNS
|
VOOG
|
|
Maximum mintage (5 years)
|
(36.4%)
|
(33.1%)
|
|
Growth of $1,000 over 5 years
|
$2,083
|
$1,978
|
The Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF holds 217 stocks, providing broader diversification in the growth portion of the S&P 500. Technology companies represent 44% of assets, with the communications services and consumer discretionary sectors also playing a significant role at 15% and 12%, respectively. Its most important positions are Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) at 15.3%, Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) at 6.2%, and Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) at 5.7%. VOOG has a 15.3 year fund history and currently avoids concentrated sector or single security risk.
The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF, on the other hand, is more concentrated with only 66 holdings and 69% of assets in technology. Its top three holdings (NVIDIA, Apple and Microsoft) collectively represent more than 38% of the portfolio. Although both funds are managed by Vanguard and avoid leverage or other structural quirks, MGK’s narrower focus results in higher potential exposure to tech sector fluctuations.
For more advice on investing in ETFs, check out the full guide at this link.
Some ETFs are so similar that it’s hard to find differences, and this is primarily the case for VOOG and MGK. Both of these funds are offered by Vanguard, known for its low fees. These two funds are no exception, both with a reasonable expense ratio of 0.07%. Both funds also have a strong focus on some of the largest companies in the public markets.
So how should investors distinguish between these funds to make an informed decision on where to invest? This depends on the desired level of exposure to the fund’s main holdings. Both have heavy exposure to the tech sector, but MGK is even more heavily tech oriented.
While Nvidia is the largest holding in both funds with approximately 15% of assets under management, the next two largest holdings, Microsoft and Apple, represent a higher percentage in MGK than in VOOG.
With almost all other differences between these funds negligible, it’s this technological exposure that truly sets them apart. Therefore, potential investors should focus on this aspect when choosing between the two.
Expense rate: The annual fee, as a percentage of assets, that a fund charges to cover operating costs.
Dividend yield: Annual dividends paid by a fund, expressed as a percentage of its current stock price.
Sector diversification: Spreading a fund’s investments among different industries or sectors to reduce risk.
Beta: A measure of a fund’s volatility relative to the broader market, usually the S&P 500.
AUM (assets under management): The total market value of all assets managed by a fund.
Maximum print run: The largest percentage decline from a fund’s peak value to its lowest point over a specific period.
$1,000 Growth: The final value of a $1,000 investment over a defined period of time, indicating the total return.
Large caps: Companies with a large market capitalization, typically over $10 billion.
Fund: The individual stocks or assets that make up a fund’s portfolio.
Concentration risk: The risk of significant losses due to heavy investments in a single sector or a few assets.
Leverage: Using borrowed money or financial instruments to increase potential returns, often increasing risk.
Have you ever felt like you missed the boat by buying the best performing stocks? Then you will want to hear this.
On rare occasions, our team of expert analysts issues a “Doubled” actions recommendation for businesses that they believe are on the verge of collapse. If you’re worried that you’ve already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it’s too late. And the numbers speak for themselves:
-
Nvidia: If you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you would have $453,954!*
-
Apple: If you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you would have $52,940!*
-
Netflix: If you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you would have $513,353!*
Right now we’re issuing “Double Down” alerts for three incredible companiesavailable when you register Equity Advisorand there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.
See the 3 actions »
*Stock Advisor returns December 8, 2025
Jeff Santoro holds positions at Apple, Microsoft and Nvidia. The Motley Fool holds positions and recommends Apple, Microsoft and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
VOOG vs MGK: Tech Exposure is Key was originally published by The Motley Fool
