VIG(VIG)
AI Look-Through Summary
AI GeneratedThe portfolio's sector allocation reveals a significant tilt towards Technology, which accounts for nearly three-fifths of its holdings in AVGO and AAPL alone. This is accompanied by notable exposure to Financial Services through JPM and MSFT. The presence of large-cap staples like LLY and JNJ underscores the fund's focus on established companies with strong market positions.
The concentration risk is elevated, given the top-10 holdings account for over 50% of the portfolio. AVGO and AAPL are also among the largest individual constituents, suggesting a high degree of dependence on these two names. Compared to the broader market, VIG has a more pronounced Technology sector bias, which may be favorable in an environment characterized by strong IT spending and innovation cycles. Conversely, a downturn in this sector could have a disproportionate impact on the portfolio's performance.
Generated by Qwen-32B from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-06-20 07:16:35.261867+00
🔍 Theme Alignment Audit
AI GeneratedPurity: 25/100The investment theme implied by the name VIG suggests a focus on high-quality companies with sustainable growth, yet the actual holdings reveal significant deviations from this narrative. While technology and healthcare sectors are prominent, the inclusion of major financial services giants like JPMorgan Chase and Visa alongside energy giant ExxonMobil creates a broad market footprint that dilutes thematic purity. The presence of diverse industries such as consumer defensives and industrials indicates that the fund relies heavily on established mega-cap stocks to generate stability rather than adhering strictly to a specific quality or growth metric. This composition suggests the portfolio is structured more like a large-cap value index with sector tilts, where well-known names are used to anchor returns instead of maintaining a sharp focus on high-growth potential alone.
Sector coherence further complicates the differentiation from broad market indices, as the weightings in technology and financial services mirror general market dominance rather than reflecting a unique strategic tilt toward quality attributes. Although top-10 concentration remains moderate at 32.5%, the sheer breadth of holdings across ten different sectors reduces the fund's ability to act as a distinct alternative to standard large-cap benchmarks. The sector breakdown shows a heavy reliance on traditional industries like finance and healthcare, which are often defensive in nature but do not necessarily align with aggressive growth themes typically associated with quality-focused strategies. Consequently, while the fund offers exposure to reputable companies across various sectors, its structure lacks the specific concentration or sector exclusivity required to be viewed as a true thematic deviation from the broader market.
AI analysis of holdings alignment vs fund theme. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 04:30:36.656547+00
🏢 Sector Analysis
AI GeneratedThe sector allocation of VIG reveals a pronounced tilt toward growth-oriented industries, with Technology and Financial Services collectively accounting for nearly 45% of the portfolio. This heavy weighting in these two sectors suggests an investment thesis centered on capturing long-term economic expansion through companies that have demonstrated consistent dividend growth alongside revenue scaling. The significant presence of large-cap technology leaders like Broadcom, Apple, and Microsoft within this segment indicates a strategy prioritizing established market players with strong competitive moats rather than speculative small-caps or emerging firms seeking rapid disruption.
Despite the dominance of high-growth sectors, the fund maintains meaningful exposure to defensive industries such as Healthcare and Consumer Defensive stocks, which together comprise roughly 26% of assets. This blend implies an attempt to balance aggressive growth potential with relative stability during periods of market volatility. However, the concentration risk remains a notable feature, evidenced by the top ten holdings representing over one-third of total assets. The fact that three separate technology giants alone constitute more than 13% of the portfolio highlights a lack of diversification across individual equities within the largest sector, meaning underperformance in these specific names could disproportionately impact overall fund returns.
Furthermore, while Industrials and Consumer Cyclical sectors provide some breadth to the economic exposure, their relatively smaller weights suggest the manager is not heavily betting on cyclical upturns or infrastructure spending cycles at this time. The minimal allocation to Energy, Utilities, and Basic Materials reinforces a focus away from commodity-driven value plays. Ultimately, the fund's structure reflects a conviction in the enduring power of large-cap dividend growers across key growth engines, though investors must weigh whether the potential for sector-specific downturns is appropriately mitigated by the current lack of exposure to other economic drivers.
AI-generated sector analysis from constituent-level data. Not investment advice. Updated: 2026-05-23 18:46:19.571138+00
Flow Driver Analysis
2-Step CircleWhich larger ETFs share VIG's holdings — and mechanically drive its price through index rebalancing flows?
Approximately 100% of VIG's weight flows through these larger ETFs
| Driver ETF | AUM | Expense | Shared Stocks | Weight Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPTMSPTM | $12B | — | 296 | 98.9% |
| QUSQUS | $1B | — | 168 | 95.4% |
| VOOVanguard S&P 500 ETF | $1.5T | 0.03% | 169 | 95.3% |
| SPYState Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust | $640B | 0.09% | 168 | 95.2% |
| VTIVanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares | $2.1T | 0.03% | 160 | 95.2% |
99% of VIG's portfolio by weight is also held by SPTM. When SPTM receives inflows, it mechanically buys these shared stocks — dragging VIG's NAV along regardless of any thematic or sector catalyst. Combined, the top 5 overlapping ETFs control exposure to 100% ofVIG's weight.
Overlap computed from constituent-level holdings data across 5 ETFs. Price co-movement with driver ETFs is structural, not coincidental. Not investment advice.
ETF Look-Through Dashboard
Peer through the ETF wrapper to see exactly what you own. Every metric is computed from constituent-level data.
Weighted metrics calculated based on 98% of fund assets with available data.
Herfindahl-Hirschman Concentration Index
Morningstar-Style Box
Sector & Cap Explorer
ETF Fundamental Radar
Operational health is mixed, with the bulk of weight in the mid-range (4–6) Piotroski scores.
Piotroski F-Score (Operational Health)
Score 0-9: Measures Profitability, Leverage, and Efficiency
Computed by rolling up individual stock Piotroski F-Scores, Altman Z-Scores, and Beneish M-Scores weighted by each constituent's allocation.
Dividend Safety True-Up
DeterministicThe dividend-paying companies inside VIG collectively pay out 62% of their Free Cash Flow to maintain the current yield. This is a sustainable payout level with moderate room for dividend growth. Based on 83% of fund weight in dividend-paying stocks.
FCF Payout Ratio = Dividends Paid / Free Cash Flow, weighted by constituent allocation. Not investment advice.
Earnings vs. Price Decomposition
ProprietaryVIG is up 19.0% over the last 12 months. The underlying weighted earnings growth of its constituents is +29.8%. Despite earnings growth, valuations have contracted by 10.8% — the market is paying less per dollar of earnings than a year ago.
Earnings growth = weighted average YoY EPS growth of all constituents (capped at ±500% to limit outlier distortion). Based on 96% of fund weight with earnings data. Not investment advice.
Value Creation Map
ROIC vs WACCWhat percentage of VIG's weight is allocated to companies that create economic value (ROIC > WACC) vs. destroy it?
Of VIG's analyzed weight, 80% is invested in companies earning more than their cost of capital — genuine value creators. The remaining 20% consists of companies whose ROIC falls below their WACC, effectively destroying shareholder value with every dollar invested.
ROIC-WACC spread for 88% of fund weight with available data. Not investment advice.
Passive Crowding Score
MODERATEHow much of each constituent's market cap is structurally locked in passive ETFs — a proxy for liquidity fragility during sell-offs.
VIG has a Passive Crowding Score of 40/100. On average, 12.1% of the market capitalization of VIG's underlying holdings is structurally locked in passive ETF vehicles. This indicates moderate passive ownership density. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption activity can amplify short-term volatility in the underlying holdings.
Passive $ = Σ(ETF AUM × holding weight) across all 49 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds). Not investment advice.
Under the Hood — Top 15 Constituents
| # | Ticker | Company | Weight | P/E | F-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | Broadcom Inc. Technology | 5.41% | 68.2x | 8/9 |
| 2 | AAPL | Apple Inc. Technology | 4.57% | 36.1x | 8/9 |
| 3 | MSFT | Microsoft Corp. Technology | 4.27% | 22.6x | 5/9 |
| 4 | LLY | Eli Lilly & Co. Healthcare | 3.85% | 39.0x | 7/9 |
| 5 | JPM | JPMorgan Chase & Co. Financial Services | 3.32% | 15.6x | 3/9 |
| 6 | XOM | Exxon Mobil Corp. Energy | 2.67% | 23.2x | 5/9 |
| 7 | JNJ | Johnson & Johnson Healthcare | 2.39% | 26.5x | 4/9 |
| 8 | V | Visa Inc. Class A Financial Services | 2.25% | 28.6x | 6/9 |
| 9 | WMT | Walmart Inc. Consumer Defensive | 2.23% | 41.3x | 7/9 |
| 10 | CSCO | Cisco Systems Inc. Technology | 2.09% | 39.8x | 8/9 |
| 11 | COST | Costco Wholesale Corp. Consumer Defensive | 1.87% | 48.0x | 6/9 |
| 12 | CAT | Caterpillar Inc. Industrials | 1.79% | 49.2x | 6/9 |
| 13 | MA | Mastercard Inc. Class A Financial Services | 1.77% | 28.3x | 8/9 |
| 14 | LRCX | Lam Research Corp. Technology | 1.75% | 73.7x | 7/9 |
| 15 | ABBV | AbbVie Inc. Healthcare | 1.69% | 105.6x | 7/9 |
Historical Holdings Snapshots
Browse how VIG’s holdings have changed across SEC filing dates. Showing top holdings per snapshot.
2026-06-23
15 holdings · 41.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 5.41% | 15,479,842 | $6.9B |
| 2 | AAPL | 4.57% | 18,723,579 | $5.8B |
| 3 | MSFT | 4.27% | 12,130,584 | $5.5B |
| 4 | LLY | 3.85% | 4,452,246 | $4.9B |
| 5 | JPM | 3.32% | 14,186,782 | $4.2B |
| 6 | XOM | 2.67% | 23,479,933 | $3.4B |
| 7 | JNJ | 2.39% | 13,540,137 | $3.1B |
| 8 | V | 2.25% | 8,800,307 | $2.9B |
| 9 | WMT | 2.23% | 24,629,449 | $2.9B |
| 10 | CSCO | 2.09% | 22,199,440 | $2.7B |
| 11 | COST | 1.87% | 2,493,902 | $2.4B |
| 12 | CAT | 1.79% | 2,614,245 | $2.3B |
| 13 | MA | 1.77% | 4,575,740 | $2.3B |
| 14 | LRCX | 1.75% | 7,016,298 | $2.2B |
| 15 | ABBV | 1.69% | 9,930,149 | $2.2B |
2026-06-22
15 holdings · 41.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 5.41% | 15,479,842 | $6.9B |
| 2 | AAPL | 4.57% | 18,723,579 | $5.8B |
| 3 | MSFT | 4.27% | 12,130,584 | $5.5B |
| 4 | LLY | 3.85% | 4,452,246 | $4.9B |
| 5 | JPM | 3.32% | 14,186,782 | $4.2B |
| 6 | XOM | 2.67% | 23,479,933 | $3.4B |
| 7 | JNJ | 2.39% | 13,540,137 | $3.1B |
| 8 | V | 2.25% | 8,800,307 | $2.9B |
| 9 | WMT | 2.23% | 24,629,449 | $2.9B |
| 10 | CSCO | 2.09% | 22,199,440 | $2.7B |
| 11 | COST | 1.87% | 2,493,902 | $2.4B |
| 12 | CAT | 1.79% | 2,614,245 | $2.3B |
| 13 | MA | 1.77% | 4,575,740 | $2.3B |
| 14 | LRCX | 1.75% | 7,016,298 | $2.2B |
| 15 | ABBV | 1.69% | 9,930,149 | $2.2B |
2026-06-21
15 holdings · 41.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 5.41% | 15,479,842 | $6.9B |
| 2 | AAPL | 4.57% | 18,723,579 | $5.8B |
| 3 | MSFT | 4.27% | 12,130,584 | $5.5B |
| 4 | LLY | 3.85% | 4,452,246 | $4.9B |
| 5 | JPM | 3.32% | 14,186,782 | $4.2B |
| 6 | XOM | 2.67% | 23,479,933 | $3.4B |
| 7 | JNJ | 2.39% | 13,540,137 | $3.1B |
| 8 | V | 2.25% | 8,800,307 | $2.9B |
| 9 | WMT | 2.23% | 24,629,449 | $2.9B |
| 10 | CSCO | 2.09% | 22,199,440 | $2.7B |
| 11 | COST | 1.87% | 2,493,902 | $2.4B |
| 12 | CAT | 1.79% | 2,614,245 | $2.3B |
| 13 | MA | 1.77% | 4,575,740 | $2.3B |
| 14 | LRCX | 1.75% | 7,016,298 | $2.2B |
| 15 | ABBV | 1.69% | 9,930,149 | $2.2B |
2026-06-20
15 holdings · 41.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 5.41% | 15,479,842 | $6.9B |
| 2 | AAPL | 4.57% | 18,723,579 | $5.8B |
| 3 | MSFT | 4.27% | 12,130,584 | $5.5B |
| 4 | LLY | 3.85% | 4,452,246 | $4.9B |
| 5 | JPM | 3.32% | 14,186,782 | $4.2B |
| 6 | XOM | 2.67% | 23,479,933 | $3.4B |
| 7 | JNJ | 2.39% | 13,540,137 | $3.1B |
| 8 | V | 2.25% | 8,800,307 | $2.9B |
| 9 | WMT | 2.23% | 24,629,449 | $2.9B |
| 10 | CSCO | 2.09% | 22,199,440 | $2.7B |
| 11 | COST | 1.87% | 2,493,902 | $2.4B |
| 12 | CAT | 1.79% | 2,614,245 | $2.3B |
| 13 | MA | 1.77% | 4,575,740 | $2.3B |
| 14 | LRCX | 1.75% | 7,016,298 | $2.2B |
| 15 | ABBV | 1.69% | 9,930,149 | $2.2B |
2026-06-19
15 holdings · 41.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 5.41% | 15,479,842 | $6.9B |
| 2 | AAPL | 4.57% | 18,723,579 | $5.8B |
| 3 | MSFT | 4.27% | 12,130,584 | $5.5B |
| 4 | LLY | 3.85% | 4,452,246 | $4.9B |
| 5 | JPM | 3.32% | 14,186,782 | $4.2B |
| 6 | XOM | 2.67% | 23,479,933 | $3.4B |
| 7 | JNJ | 2.39% | 13,540,137 | $3.1B |
| 8 | V | 2.25% | 8,800,307 | $2.9B |
| 9 | WMT | 2.23% | 24,629,449 | $2.9B |
| 10 | CSCO | 2.09% | 22,199,440 | $2.7B |
| 11 | COST | 1.87% | 2,493,902 | $2.4B |
| 12 | CAT | 1.79% | 2,614,245 | $2.3B |
| 13 | MA | 1.77% | 4,575,740 | $2.3B |
| 14 | LRCX | 1.75% | 7,016,298 | $2.2B |
| 15 | ABBV | 1.69% | 9,930,149 | $2.2B |
2026-06-18
15 holdings · 41.9% tracked weight| # | Ticker | Weight | Shares | Market Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | AVGO | 5.41% | 15,479,842 | $6.9B |
| 2 | AAPL | 4.57% | 18,723,579 | $5.8B |
| 3 | MSFT | 4.27% | 12,130,584 | $5.5B |
| 4 | LLY | 3.85% | 4,452,246 | $4.9B |
| 5 | JPM | 3.32% | 14,186,782 | $4.2B |
| 6 | XOM | 2.67% | 23,479,933 | $3.4B |
| 7 | JNJ | 2.39% | 13,540,137 | $3.1B |
| 8 | V | 2.25% | 8,800,307 | $2.9B |
| 9 | WMT | 2.23% | 24,629,449 | $2.9B |
| 10 | CSCO | 2.09% | 22,199,440 | $2.7B |
| 11 | COST | 1.87% | 2,493,902 | $2.4B |
| 12 | CAT | 1.79% | 2,614,245 | $2.3B |
| 13 | MA | 1.77% | 4,575,740 | $2.3B |
| 14 | LRCX | 1.75% | 7,016,298 | $2.2B |
| 15 | ABBV | 1.69% | 9,930,149 | $2.2B |
Source: SEC filings and fund provider disclosures. Shows last 6 snapshot dates, top 15 holdings per date by weight.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Computed from 1,200+ trading days with 5% risk-free rate.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
What Drove VIG Today?
Daily return attribution — which holdings contributed most (and least) to the fund's move.
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the ETF's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Yield & Income
Sector Drift Over Time
How VIG’s sector allocation has shifted across snapshots. Use the slider to travel through time.
Active Conviction Tracker
Shares bought and sold between the latest two data snapshots — reveals what the fund manager is actually doing.
Explore More
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-22.
SecuritiesDB is for informational purposes only. Not investment advice.