MGK vs VOOG: Which Vanguard Growth ETF Fits Your Portfolio Strategy?

The Core Differences at a Glance

When it comes to tracking U.S. growth stocks, the Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) and Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) sit at opposite ends of the spectrum—and that distinction matters more than you might think.

Both charge an identical 0.07% expense ratio, putting them among the cheapest growth vehicles available. Yet their approaches diverge significantly. MGK focuses exclusively on the largest growth companies—those mega-cap names with market capitalizations exceeding $200 billion. VOOG, meanwhile, takes a broader approach by tracking all growth-oriented stocks within the S&P 500 index, resulting in a much larger portfolio.

The numbers tell the story: VOOG holds 217 stocks, while MGK maintains a tightly curated 66 holdings. This fundamental difference ripples through everything from risk exposure to sector concentration.

Performance: Growth vs. Stability

Over the trailing 12 months (as of December 2025), VOOG slightly edged out MGK with a 16.74% total return compared to MGK’s 15.09%. The dividend yield tells a similar story, with VOOG delivering 0.48% versus MGK’s 0.37%.

But zoom out to the five-year window, and the picture becomes more nuanced. MGK generated $2,083 from an initial $1,000 investment, outpacing VOOG’s $1,978 return. However, this outperformance came with a cost: MGK experienced a steeper maximum drawdown of -36.02% compared to VOOG’s -32.74%, signaling higher volatility during market corrections.

The beta metrics reinforce this pattern—MGK’s 5-year beta of 1.24 indicates significantly greater price swings relative to the S&P 500, while VOOG’s 1.10 beta suggests a smoother ride.

Inside the Holdings: Tech Concentration vs. Sector Balance

The composition of these funds reveals why their performance profiles diverge. MGK leans heavily into technology, with 58% of its portfolio concentrated in the sector. Its top three holdings—Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple—represent a substantial chunk of the fund’s assets, amplifying exposure to mega-cap tech leaders.

VOOG adopts a more balanced approach. While technology still dominates at 44% of the portfolio, the remaining allocation spreads across communication services, consumer cyclicals, and other sectors. This broader construction means Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple carry less weight relative to the overall fund, creating natural diversification.

The tradeoff is clear: MGK has captured the explosive growth of mega-cap tech companies over recent years, but VOOG’s diversification has insulated it from the worst drawdowns when tech stumbles.

The $33B vs $21.7B Question: Assets and Implications

MGK manages $33.0 billion in assets under management compared to VOOG’s $21.7 billion. This size difference reflects MGK’s appeal to investors seeking concentrated exposure to industry titans. However, size alone doesn’t determine superiority—it simply reflects different investment philosophies and investor preferences.

Which ETF Aligns with Your Goals?

Choose MGK if: You believe mega-cap technology companies will continue driving market returns, can tolerate significant volatility swings, and want maximum exposure to the largest growth engines in the market. The concentrated bet has paid off recently, though past performance doesn’t guarantee future results.

Choose VOOG if: You prefer a smoother investment experience with lower volatility, value exposure across multiple sectors beyond tech, and want the stability that 217 diverse holdings provide. The slightly higher 1-year return and more moderate drawdowns suggest a balanced growth strategy.

The practical reality: Both funds charge the same fee and offer legitimate pathways to growth stock exposure. Your choice hinges on volatility tolerance and conviction. Investors uncomfortable with -36% swings might prioritize VOOG’s gentler beta, while those bullish on mega-cap dominance could justify MGK’s concentration.

Key Metrics Comparison

The decision between MGK and VOOG ultimately depends on whether you’re chasing concentrated bets on mega-cap winners or seeking a more balanced approach to large-cap growth. Both remain solid vehicles for long-term investors at these low cost levels.