What is the difference between equal sector weighting and cap-weighting?

Fund A uses equal sector weighting, aiming to balance exposure across market segments rather than allowing larger companies to dominate by size. Fund B follows a traditional capitalisation-weighted approach, where companies with higher market values have larger weights. This structural difference means Fund A may adjust allocations based on sector performance, whereas Fund B’s weights shift as individual company valuations change, reflecting broader market leadership trends.

What does 'Large Value' versus 'Large Blend' mean for these funds?

Fund A is categorised as Large Value, suggesting it typically targets established companies trading at lower valuations relative to earnings or book value. Fund B is Large Blend, combining growth and value characteristics within large-cap stocks. These labels indicate the underlying investment styles: Fund A may emphasise stability and income, while Fund B offers diversified exposure to the broader large-cap market, balancing both growth and value factors.

How do expense ratios impact long-term returns for these ETFs?

Expense ratios directly reduce net returns. Fund B has an expense ratio of 0.03%, compared to Fund A’s 0.19%, a difference of 0.16 percentage points annually. Over decades, this fee drag can compound, slightly lowering Fund A’s net accumulation unless its strategy generates sufficient excess return. Investors must consider this cost difference when comparing performance, as lower fees generally provide a head start in total return.

Which fund has a higher dividend yield and what does it imply?

Fund A reports a dividend yield of 1.35%, while Fund B yields 1.03%. A higher yield indicates Fund A’s underlying companies pay more relative to their price, potentially offering greater income distribution. However, yields can fluctuate with price changes and company payout decisions. The difference suggests Fund A may appeal to income-focused strategies, though total return remains a combination of income and capital appreciation.

Are the top holdings of Fund A and Fund B similar?

There is notable overlap. GOOGL, AMZN, META, NVDA, AAPL, and TSLA appear in the top ten for both funds. However, weights differ significantly: NVDA is 8.08% in Fund B versus 1.88% in Fund A, while GOOGL is 5.33% in Fund A against 3.01% in Fund B. This shared exposure reduces differentiation in major tech holdings, though sector balancing alters individual stock impacts on performance.

How does the concentration risk differ between the two ETFs?

Fund B exhibits higher single-stock concentration, with its top holding NVDA at 8.08%, followed by AAPL at 7.03%. Fund A’s largest holding is GOOGL at 5.33%, with more balanced distribution across sectors. Equal sector weighting in Fund A mitigates dominance by any one sector, whereas Fund B’s cap-weighted structure increases exposure to large tech leaders, creating different concentration profiles and sector risk dynamics.

How do the fund sizes influence liquidity and trading?

Fund B has $1.08 trillion in net assets, indicating very high liquidity and tight bid-ask spreads, which supports large trading volumes efficiently. Fund A manages $752 million, significantly smaller. While likely still tradable, the asset base difference means Fund B generally offers smoother execution and lower market impact for larger orders, an important practical consideration for active traders or large allocations.

How do these ETFs reflect different market segment dynamics?

Fund A’s equal sector approach aims to neutralise sector drift, maintaining balanced exposure even if one sector outperforms. Fund B reflects market leadership, concentrating weight in sectors and stocks gaining value. During tech rallies, Fund B may show greater sensitivity to sector momentum. Fund A might lag in such phases but could be more resilient during sector rotations, illustrating distinct reactions to market regimes.

What role does the underlying index methodology play here?

Neither fund’s index tracking methodology is available in the data. However, the fund names imply Fund A tracks an equal sector index, rebalancing periodically to maintain equal weights. Fund B likely tracks the S&P 500, a float-adjusted, capitalisation-weighted index. This methodological difference drives the divergent holdings weights and sector exposures, despite similar constituent companies in both portfolios.

How do inception dates affect the historical comparison of these ETFs?

Fund A launched on July 7, 2009, and Fund B on September 7, 2010. Both have operated for over a decade, providing sufficient history to assess performance across market cycles. The one-year difference is negligible for long-term strategy evaluation. Investors should review full return periods, focusing on how each fund behaved during major drawdowns or rallies, rather than the short gap in inception.

What should beginners note about data gaps like issuer and sector weights?

Data for Fund A’s issuer and index tracked, and Fund B’s index tracked and sector weights, is currently not available. Beginners must rely on fund objectives and holdings to infer structure. These gaps limit full transparency analysis. Always check official fund documentation for updates on methodology and issuer details, as this information is crucial for confirming how an ETF manages its portfolio.

What is the educational purpose of comparing these two ETFs?

This comparison illustrates different investing philosophies: balanced sector exposure versus market-cap weighted leadership. It highlights how fee structures, dividend yields, and asset sizes influence fund characteristics. By examining shared holdings and unique weights, readers learn to assess diversification and concentration. The data provides a framework for analysing any ETF pair, fostering better interpretation of fund metrics without suggesting specific investment actions.

EQL vs VOO

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in October 2026.

Compare EQL and VOO: an equal sector strategy versus large blend. Review fees, holdings, dividends and tracking methods. This page helps you assess how each fund reflects market dynamics using provided data. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

EQL

Metric

VOO

0.19%

Expense Ratio

0.03%

1.35%

Dividend Yield

1.03%

$752.07M

Net Assets

$1.08T

499

Holdings

516

Jul 7, 2009

Inception Date

Sep 7, 2010

–

Index Tracked

–

Large Value

Fund Category

Large Blend

VOO costs about $16.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	EQL	VOO
GOOGLAlphabet Inc.	5.33%	3.01%
AMZNAmazon.com, Inc.	3.79%	3.84%
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.	2.04%	1.90%
NVDANVIDIA Corporation	1.88%	8.08%
AAPLApple Inc.	1.79%	7.03%
TSLATesla, Inc.	1.57%	1.57%

Discover More Comparisons

EQL vs RSP

Compare EQL and RSP ETFs. Examine expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields, and holdings. Understand sector versus equal-weight strategies.

SCHG vs VOO

Compare SCHG and VOO: 0.04% vs 0.03% expense ratio, large-cap growth vs the S&P 500, 196 vs 516 holdings, and a 0.37% vs 1.04% dividend yield.

IVV vs VOO

Compare IVV and VOO S&P 500 ETFs. Review identical 0.03% expense ratios, liquidity scale, dividend yields, and top holdings. Neutral factual analysis provided.

Investment Analysis

EQL

Pros

Equal sector weighting provides disciplined diversification across market segments.
Moderate expense ratio of 0.19% is competitive for a sector-based ETF.
Higher dividend yield of 1.35% offers greater income potential than many peers.

Considerations

Issuer and index tracking details are currently not available.
Top holdings like GOOGL show significant concentration in specific equities.
Relatively smaller asset base of $752 million compared to major broad market ETFs.

VOO

Pros

],
Extremely low 0.03% expense ratio minimises annual holding costs.
Massive $1.08 trillion in net assets supports high liquidity and trading efficiency.

Considerations

],
Top holdings like NVDA represent substantial single-stock concentration risk.
Index tracking methodology details are currently not available for this fund.

Related Market Insights

The Tokenisation Revolution: Why Global Asset Access Is About to Change Everything

Explore the Tokenisation Revolution Neme. Invest in companies building infrastructure for global asset access, fractional ownership, and borderless finance.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

25 July 2025

Read Insight

Related Market Insights

The Tokenisation Revolution: Why Global Asset Access Is About to Change Everything

Explore the Tokenisation Revolution Neme. Invest in companies building infrastructure for global asset access, fractional ownership, and borderless finance.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

25 July 2025

Read Insight

About EQL and VOO

EQL (EQL)

The ALPS ETF Trust Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL) offers a distinct approach to large-cap exposure. Rather than following traditional market capitalisation weighting, this fund allocates equally across sectors. This strategy aims to reduce concentration risk in heavily weighted sectors, potentially providing a more balanced portfolio structure. With 499 holdings, it offers broad diversification across the large-cap market, classified within the Large Value category. Investors should note that while equal weighting can mitigate the dominance of specific industries, it may also underperform in periods where a single sector, such as technology, drives significant market returns. The fund maintains a competitive expense ratio of 0.19% and has been in operation since July 2009. Its current dividend yield stands at 1.35%. As with any investment, values can fluctuate, and returns are not guaranteed. It serves as an educational example of alternative weighting methodologies for investors exploring sector diversification strategies.

VOO (VOO)

VOO is Vanguard’s exchange-traded fund designed to track the S&P 500 Index, offering broad exposure to about 500 of the largest publicly traded US companies. It aims to replicate the index’s performance minus fees by holding the same stocks in similar proportions, making it a straightforward, passive way to access large‑cap US equities. Investors commonly use VOO as a core holding for long‑term growth or as a simple building block in a diversified portfolio. It typically offers high liquidity and regular dividend distributions from underlying companies. As with any equity investment, VOO’s value can rise or fall with the market, and past performance is not a guide to future returns. Fees, trading costs and potential tracking error reduce returns slightly. This information is general and educational only and not personalised financial advice — consider your own circumstances or speak to a qualified adviser before investing.

Which Baskets Do They Appear In?

Tokenized World: Global Asset Access

Invest in companies revolutionizing how we access global assets through blockchain technology. These carefully selected stocks represent leaders enabling the tokenization of real-world assets, from trading platforms to the infrastructure that makes it all possible.

Published: 1 July 2025

Explore Basket

Which Baskets Do They Appear In?

Tokenized World: Global Asset Access

Published: 1 July 2025

Explore Basket

Buy EQL or VOO in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

EQL vs VOO

Fund Snapshot