Last updated: October 2026 · All data sourced from fund issuer websites and finance.yahoo.com
The best growth ETFs in 2026 — from VUG at 0.03% to QQQ’s Nasdaq-100 exposure and ARKK at 0.75%. Compare costs, returns, and concentration to find your fit.
Table of Contents
Growth ETFs have been among the strongest performers of the past decade, driven largely by the rise of mega-cap US technology companies. That same concentration creates specific risks, because a handful of stocks can drive a large share of a fund’s results in both directions. Recent performance reflects a particular stretch of technology dominance and does not guarantee future results.
“Growth investing” spans a wide spectrum, from low-cost passive index funds like VUG to actively managed, concentrated bets like ARKK. The best growth ETF depends on your cost tolerance, risk appetite, and view on whether passive or active management better serves your goals.
We compared each fund on expense ratio, assets under management, index methodology or investment process, track record, and how it differs from the others. This list runs from ultra-low-cost passive funds (0.03%) to an actively managed fund (0.75%), so it helps to understand the trade-offs at each end.
Best Growth ETFs at a Glance
| ETF | Strategy | Expense Ratio | AUM | 5Y Return | # Holdings | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VUG | Passive — Large-Cap Growth | 0.03% | ~$392B (all share classes; ETF class ~$233B) | +13.9% | ~135 | Best overall / lowest cost |
| QQQ | Passive — Nasdaq-100 | 0.18% | ~$499B | +16.3% | ~101 | Traders / max liquidity |
| SCHG | Passive — Large-Cap Growth | 0.04% | ~$63.9B | +14.7% | ~189 | Schwab users |
| IWF | Passive — Russell Growth | 0.18% | ~$127.7B | +13.5% | ~372 | Russell benchmark users |
| QQQM | Passive — Nasdaq-100 | 0.15% | ~$109.8B | +16.4% | ~101 | Buy-and-hold Nasdaq |
| MGK | Passive — Mega-Cap Growth | 0.05% | ~$35.1B | +15.1% | ~56 | Max mega-cap concentration |
| ARKK | Active — Disruptive Innovation | 0.75% | ~$7.9B | −4.1% | ~46 | High-risk / speculative |
How We Selected These Growth ETFs
For this article, a growth ETF is a fund that explicitly targets companies with above-average earnings growth, revenue growth, or price momentum, either through an index methodology (passive) or through active stock selection.
We applied a minimum of $1 billion in assets under management and excluded smaller funds, even those with interesting strategies. We included six passive index ETFs and one actively managed ETF to represent the approaches investors actually use. Each fund tracks a different index or follows a different strategy, with one deliberate exception: QQQ and QQQM track the same Nasdaq-100 but differ in cost and use case, and that comparison is among the most searched in the category.
Expense ratios range from 0.03% (VUG) to 0.75% (ARKK). We kept the full range rather than excluding higher-cost options.
ARKK is a cautionary inclusion, not a blanket recommendation. Its high cost, roughly 80% peak-to-trough decline, and negative five-year annualized return are disclosed in full so readers can judge the trade-offs themselves.
Growth ETFs are not interchangeable. The difference between a passive index fund and an active concentrated strategy is fundamental, not cosmetic. The right choice depends on your investment philosophy, risk tolerance, and cost sensitivity.
1. VUG — Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF: Best Overall Growth ETF
Why we picked VUG
VUG’s 0.03% expense ratio is the lowest in the large-cap growth category among funds with significant assets. Its Morningstar US Large Cap Growth Index holds roughly 135 stocks, fewer than SCHG (~189) or IWF (~372) but well above mega-cap-focused MGK (~56). Vanguard adopted this index in July 2026, replacing the CRSP index.
“Large-cap growth” refers to big companies selected for strong earnings growth, revenue growth, or price-to-book characteristics. VUG is heavily weighted toward technology, at approximately 57.8% of the fund as of October 2026. Its top three holdings (NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft) represented about 35.7%, and its top 10 about 63.1%, so investors must be comfortable with that concentration.
Key facts
| Metric | VUG |
|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% |
| AUM | ~$392B total fund net assets across all share classes |
| Avg Daily Volume | ~5.6 million shares |
| Dividend Yield | ~0.38% (trailing 12-month, Yahoo Finance) |
| # Holdings | ~135 |
| Top 10 Holdings Weight | ~63.1% |
| Index Tracked | Morningstar US Large Cap Growth Index |
| Fund Structure | Open-end fund |
| Inception Date | Jan 26, 2004 |
Historical performance
| Period (annualized) | VUG | S&P 500 (SPY proxy) |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Year | +13.1% | +15.6% |
| 3-Year | +26.3% | +22.8% |
| 5-Year | +13.9% | +13.7% |
| 10-Year | +17.9% | +15.2% |
As of October 2026, sourced from finance.yahoo.com. VUG has returned approximately +26.3% annualized over three years and +17.9% over ten, ahead of the S&P 500, though it trailed the index over the past year. These results are closely tied to the rise of mega-cap technology.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Growth ETFs can decline significantly in value when growth stocks fall out of favor.
Pros
- Lowest expense ratio in the category: At 0.03%, VUG costs less than every other fund on this list.
- Broader than mega-cap peers: About 135 holdings compares with ~101 for QQQ and ~56 for MGK, which is slightly more diversified within growth.
- Investor-owned structure: Vanguard’s ownership model supports long-term cost discipline.
- Core-friendly: Large AUM and healthy volume make it practical to buy and sell as a core growth allocation.
Cons
- Technology concentration: Technology was about 57.8% of the fund and the top 10 holdings about 63.1%.
- Low income: A yield of approximately 0.38% offers little current income.
- Value-led markets: It may lag the broad market when value stocks lead growth stocks.
Best for
VUG may suit long-term investors who want US large-cap growth exposure at the lowest available cost and are comfortable with heavy technology weighting. It may be a poor fit for income-focused investors or those seeking to reduce technology exposure.
Read our full VUG ETF review →
2. QQQ — Invesco QQQ Trust: Best for Nasdaq / Technology Exposure
Why we picked QQQ
QQQ tracks the Nasdaq-100, the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange. It is among the most heavily traded ETFs in the world, with average daily volume of approximately 35.9 million shares. That liquidity and one of the deepest options markets of any ETF make it a standard instrument for growth-oriented institutional traders and options users.
Be clear about the cost: its 0.18% expense ratio is six times VUG’s 0.03%, which matters for long-term buy-and-hold investors. QQQ was a Unit Investment Trust, which could not immediately reinvest dividends, until it converted to an open-end fund on Dec 22, 2025. Investors who want identical Nasdaq-100 exposure without trading may prefer QQQM at 0.15%.
Key facts
| Metric | QQQ |
|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% |
| AUM | ~$499B |
| Avg Daily Volume | ~35.9 million shares |
| Dividend Yield | ~0.42% (trailing 12-month, Yahoo Finance) |
| # Holdings | ~101 |
| Top 10 Holdings Weight | ~46.6% |
| Index Tracked | Nasdaq-100 Index |
| Fund Structure | Open-end fund (converted from a Unit Investment Trust on Dec 22, 2025) |
| Inception Date | Mar 10, 1999 |
Historical performance
| Period (annualized) | QQQ | S&P 500 (SPY proxy) |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Year | +23.8% | +15.6% |
| 3-Year | +28.0% | +22.8% |
| 5-Year | +16.3% | +13.7% |
| 10-Year | +20.9% | +15.2% |
As of October 2026, sourced from finance.yahoo.com. QQQ’s +20.9% ten-year annualized return was the highest of any ETF on this list, among the strongest of any mainstream non-leveraged ETF. That record was driven largely by technology concentration, with technology at about 60.3% of the fund.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Pros
- Liquidity: Average volume of ~35.9 million shares per day makes it one of the easiest ETFs to trade.
- Options market: Its options market is among the deepest of any ETF.
- Long track record: It has traded since March 1999, more than 25 years.
- Benchmark status: The Nasdaq-100 is a widely used technology and innovation benchmark.
Cons
- Cost: The 0.18% expense ratio is six times VUG’s.
- QQQM comparison: It costs 0.03 percentage points more than QQQM for identical Nasdaq-100 exposure.
- Concentration: The top 10 holdings represented about 46.6% of the fund, and technology about 60.3%.
Best for
QQQ could work for active traders, options users, and investors who need institutional-grade liquidity. Cost-conscious buy-and-hold investors may find QQQM a better fit.
Read our full QQQ ETF review →
3. SCHG — Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF: Best Low-Cost Runner-Up
Why we picked SCHG
SCHG’s 0.04% expense ratio is just 0.01 percentage points above VUG’s. It tracks a different benchmark, the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index, which holds about 189 stocks versus VUG’s ~135 and produces modestly different sector weights. Technology was about 54.6% of SCHG versus 57.8% for VUG, and its top 10 holdings were about 60.7%.
For Schwab platform users, SCHG is the natural large-cap growth choice because trading is commission-free there. At other brokerages, the VUG-versus-SCHG decision mostly comes down to index preference, since cost and risk are close to equivalent.
Key facts
| Metric | SCHG |
|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.04% |
| AUM | ~$63.9B |
| Avg Daily Volume | ~7.5 million shares |
| Dividend Yield | ~0.39% (trailing 12-month, Yahoo Finance) |
| # Holdings | ~189 |
| Top 10 Holdings Weight | ~60.7% |
| Index Tracked | Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index |
| Fund Structure | Open-end fund |
| Inception Date | Dec 11, 2009 |
Historical performance
| Period (annualized) | SCHG | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Year | +13.0% | +13.1% |
| 3-Year | +26.0% | +26.3% |
| 5-Year | +14.7% | +13.9% |
| 10-Year | +18.7% | +17.9% |
As of October 2026, sourced from finance.yahoo.com. SCHG has returned within 0.3 percentage points of VUG over one and three years and ahead of it over five and ten. Differences this small reflect index construction rather than a durable edge.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Pros
- Low cost: 0.04% is nearly identical to VUG’s 0.03%.
- Commission-free at Schwab: Schwab clients can trade it without commissions.
- Different sector weights: More industrials and healthcare exposure than VUG offers a variation on large-cap growth.
- Broader holdings: About 189 stocks reduces single-stock risk versus more concentrated funds.
Cons
- Index differences: The Dow Jones methodology versus Morningstar creates a modest tracking difference.
- Little reason to switch: Investors already in VUG gain little from changing.
Best for
SCHG may suit Schwab platform users seeking a near-lowest-cost large-cap growth fund with commission-free trading. Investors elsewhere could find VUG equivalent or easier to access.
Read our full SCHG ETF review →
4. IWF — iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF: Best Russell Growth Index Exposure
Why we picked IWF
IWF tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index, the growth half of the Russell 1000, which covers the largest 1,000 US companies. Its ~372 holdings make it the broadest fund on this list, with more mid-cap growth exposure than VUG or SCHG. Even so, its top 10 holdings represented about 57.8% of the fund and technology about 56.7%.
Its 0.18% expense ratio is six times VUG’s 0.03% and 4.5 times SCHG’s 0.04%. That is difficult to justify for most individual investors unless they specifically need Russell benchmark alignment.
Key facts
| Metric | IWF |
|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% |
| AUM | ~$127.7B |
| Avg Daily Volume | ~4.0 million shares |
| Dividend Yield | ~0.34% (Yahoo Finance) |
| # Holdings | ~372 |
| Top 10 Holdings Weight | ~57.8% |
| Index Tracked | Russell 1000 Growth Index |
| Fund Structure | Open-end fund |
| Inception Date | May 22, 2000 |
Historical performance
| Period (annualized) | IWF | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Year | +7.3% | +13.1% |
| 3-Year | +24.1% | +26.3% |
| 5-Year | +13.5% | +13.9% |
| 10-Year | +17.9% | +17.9% |
As of October 2026, sourced from finance.yahoo.com. IWF has returned similar to or less than VUG over every period shown, most notably over the past year (+7.3% versus +13.1%). It matched VUG over ten years despite its higher cost.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Pros
- Broadest holdings: About 372 stocks is the most on this list.
- Russell alignment: It matches a widely used institutional benchmark.
- Large AUM: About $127.7B supports easy trading.
- iShares access: It fits investors who prefer the iShares platform.
Cons
- Cost: 0.18% versus 0.03% for VUG is six times more expensive.
- No cost advantage: Returns were similar to or lower than VUG’s over the periods shown.
- Concentration remains: Technology was about 56.7% despite the broader holding count.
Best for
IWF may suit investors or institutions benchmarking against the Russell 1000 Growth Index, or those who prefer iShares. Most cost-conscious individuals could find VUG or SCHG offer similar exposure for far less.
Read our full IWF ETF review →
5. QQQM — Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF: Best Nasdaq-100 ETF for Long-Term Holders
Why we picked QQQM
QQQM tracks the identical Nasdaq-100 as QQQ and holds the same ~101 securities, but charges 0.15% instead of 0.18%. It has used an open-end structure since launch, whereas QQQ converted only in December 2025. For buy-and-hold investors who do not use options, QQQM is the lower-cost way to own the same index.
The QQQ-versus-QQQM choice is not one-size-fits-all. Options users and active traders may still prefer QQQ because its options market and liquidity are far larger.
Key facts
| Metric | QQQM |
|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% |
| AUM | ~$109.8B |
| Avg Daily Volume | ~2.9 million shares |
| Dividend Yield | ~0.43% (trailing 12-month, Yahoo Finance) |
| # Holdings | ~101 |
| Top 10 Holdings Weight | ~46.6% (identical to QQQ) |
| Index Tracked | Nasdaq-100 Index |
| Fund Structure | Open-end fund |
| Inception Date | Oct 13, 2020 (10-year return N/A; see QQQ for long-term history) |
Historical performance
| Period (annualized) | QQQM | S&P 500 (SPY proxy) |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Year | +23.8% | +15.6% |
| 3-Year | +28.1% | +22.8% |
| 5-Year | +16.4% | +13.7% |
| 10-Year | N/A (launched Oct 2020) | +15.2% |
As of October 2026, sourced from finance.yahoo.com. QQQM’s returns have been nearly identical to QQQ’s because both track the same index. For a ten-year record, refer to QQQ’s +20.9%, keeping in mind its higher cost.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Pros
- Lower cost: 0.15% versus QQQ’s 0.18%.
- Open-end structure since launch: This allowed immediate dividend reinvestment well before QQQ adopted it.
- Identical exposure: Same Nasdaq-100 index and holdings as QQQ.
- Lower share price: It is more accessible for smaller purchases.
Cons
- Shorter record: It launched in October 2020, so no ten-year history exists.
- Smaller options market: Liquidity and options depth are much lower than QQQ’s.
- Same concentration: Top 10 holdings were about 46.6% and technology about 60.3%.
Best for
QQQM may suit buy-and-hold investors who want Nasdaq-100 exposure at lower cost and do not need QQQ’s options market. Active traders and options users might find QQQ the better tool.
Read our full QQQM ETF review →
6. MGK — Vanguard Morningstar Mega Cap Growth ETF: Best for Concentrated Mega-Cap Exposure
Why we picked MGK
MGK concentrates in approximately 56 of the very largest US growth companies at a 0.05% expense ratio, making it the most concentrated passive growth ETF on this list. Its top 10 holdings represented about 64.5% of the fund, and technology about 60.1%. It holds far fewer companies than VUG (~135) or SCHG (~189), so any single company has a larger impact on its return.
When mega-cap technology companies dominate market returns, MGK has tended to outperform broader growth ETFs. When smaller companies lead, it tends to lag.
Key facts
| Metric | MGK |
|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.05% |
| AUM | ~$35.1B |
| Avg Daily Volume | ~1.2 million shares |
| Dividend Yield | ~0.33% (trailing 12-month, Yahoo Finance) |
| # Holdings | ~56 |
| Top 10 Holdings Weight | ~64.5% |
| Index Tracked | Morningstar US Mega Cap Growth Index |
| Fund Structure | Open-end fund |
| Inception Date | Dec 17, 2007 |
Historical performance
| Period (annualized) | MGK | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Year | +15.5% | +13.1% |
| 3-Year | +27.4% | +26.3% |
| 5-Year | +15.1% | +13.9% |
| 10-Year | +19.0% | +17.9% |
As of October 2026, sourced from finance.yahoo.com. MGK has returned more than VUG over all four periods shown, consistent with a stretch in which the largest companies led the market. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Pros
- Maximum mega-cap focus: It is the most concentrated passive growth fund on this list.
- Low cost for its concentration: The 0.05% expense ratio is modest for this strategy.
- Vanguard cost discipline: Investor-owned structure supports low long-term costs.
- Mega-cap rallies: It has tended to outperform broader growth ETFs when the largest companies lead.
Cons
- Single-company risk: With ~56 holdings, one stock’s decline can weigh heavily.
- Non-mega-cap markets: It tends to underperform when small and mid-cap stocks lead.
- Overlap with VUG: Investors already holding VUG have significant duplication, with a similar top-three of NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft.
Best for
MGK may suit investors with high conviction in the very largest US growth companies who want low-cost, concentrated exposure. It could be redundant for those already holding VUG or heavily weighted toward mega-cap technology.
Read our full MGK ETF review →
7. ARKK — ARK Innovation ETF: Best Actively Managed Growth ETF (High Risk)
Why we included ARKK (with important caveats)
ARKK is fundamentally different from every other ETF on this list. It is actively managed, meaning ARK’s analysts select companies they believe will benefit from disruptive technological innovation rather than replicating an index. Its 0.75% expense ratio reflects that active management cost.
ARKK delivered extraordinary returns in 2020 and peaked in early 2021, then declined roughly 80% from that peak. As of October 2026, its 5-year annualized return was −4.1%, versus +13.7% for the S&P 500. Its 3-year annualized return of +31.0% was the highest on this list, but that window begins after the 2021–2022 decline.
This is a record of facts, not a verdict on future results. ARKK holds about 46 positions with a top-10 weight of about 48.6%, and Healthcare (30.1%) is its largest sector, ahead of Technology (26.7%).
Key facts
| Metric | ARKK |
|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% |
| AUM | ~$7.9B |
| Avg Daily Volume | ~4.7 million shares |
| Dividend Yield | ~0.00% (trailing 12-month) |
| # Holdings | ~46 |
| Top 10 Holdings Weight | ~48.6% |
| Index Tracked | None — actively managed, no benchmark index |
| Fund Structure | Open-end fund (actively managed) |
| Inception Date | Oct 31, 2014 |
Historical performance
| Period (annualized) | ARKK | S&P 500 (SPY proxy) |
|---|---|---|
| 1-Year | +3.6% | +15.6% |
| 3-Year | +31.0% | +22.8% |
| 5-Year | −4.1% | +13.7% |
| 10-Year | +15.8% | +15.2% |
As of October 2026, sourced from finance.yahoo.com. ARKK peaked in early 2021 and subsequently fell roughly 80% from that high. Its five-year record has significantly trailed index ETFs since that peak, while its recent three-year figure has been strong. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Pros
- Active management: It is the only actively managed option on this list.
- Early-stage exposure: It holds disruptive companies not found in standard indexes.
- Transparency: ARK publishes its research process and holdings.
- Upside potential: Returns could be outsized if the disruptive technology thesis proves correct.
Cons
- Cost: The 0.75% expense ratio is roughly 15–25 times the 0.03%–0.05% charged by the lowest-cost passive funds here.
- Drawdown: A roughly 80% decline from the 2021 peak illustrates concentration risk in speculative positions.
- Recent underperformance: The 1-year (+3.6%) and 5-year (−4.1%) returns trailed the S&P 500 (+15.6% and +13.7%) net of fees. The strong 3-year return began after the decline.
Best for
ARKK may suit investors who can tolerate significant drawdowns and want speculative exposure to disruptive themes, knowing it could trail the broader market for years. It is not a core portfolio holding for most investors, and it may be inappropriate for retirement or essential financial goals.
Read our full ARKK ETF review →
How to Choose the Right Growth ETF for You
Growth ETFs have benefited from a specific decade of technology dominance, and that leadership may not persist. Match the fund to your needs rather than to recent returns.
If you want the lowest-cost passive growth exposure: VUG (0.03%) or SCHG (0.04%) could fit. If you use Vanguard or have no platform preference, VUG; if you use Schwab, SCHG. The choice between them is marginal.
If you are an active trader or use options strategies: QQQ may fit. Its liquidity and options market are unmatched in this group, and the 0.18% expense ratio is the cost of that ecosystem.
If you want Nasdaq-100 exposure as a long-term buy-and-hold position: QQQM may be preferable to QQQ. Same companies, 0.15% versus 0.18%.
If you want Russell benchmark alignment or iShares access: IWF could work. Otherwise, the cost premium over VUG and SCHG is difficult to justify.
If you believe mega-cap technology companies may keep leading: MGK offers maximum concentration. Understand that ~56 holdings means single-company performance has an outsized impact.
If you want early-stage disruptive technology and accept significant risk: ARKK could work, but only as a satellite position. Weigh the historical drawdown and 0.75% cost.
Growth ETFs carry more concentration risk than broad market ETFs. Before adding any growth ETF to your portfolio, consider how much technology sector concentration you already have through other holdings. Consider your time horizon, income needs, tax situation, and risk tolerance. A financial advisor can help you determine the right approach for your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the best growth ETF?
It depends on investor type and goals. For most long-term passive investors seeking the lowest cost, VUG (0.03%) or SCHG (0.04%) are the most cost-efficient choices. For Nasdaq-100 exposure, buy-and-hold investors may prefer QQQM over QQQ for its lower expense ratio. ARKK is a different approach, with active management, higher costs, and higher risk, that suits only a specific type of investor. No single ETF is best for everyone.
Are growth ETFs riskier than broad market ETFs?
Yes, in an important way. Growth ETFs concentrate in a narrower, technology-heavy universe compared with broad market ETFs like VTI or VOO. When growth stocks fall out of favor, as in 2022 when rising interest rates pressured growth valuations, growth ETFs can decline more than the broad market. Concentrated active funds like ARKK have shown even larger drawdowns, so understand this risk before investing.
Is QQQ the same as a growth ETF?
Not strictly. QQQ tracks the Nasdaq-100, which includes the 100 largest non-financial Nasdaq-listed companies regardless of growth classification. Its heavy technology concentration (about 60.3%) means it has behaved much like large-cap growth ETFs in many environments. It may hold companies strict growth indexes would exclude, and vice versa, so many investors treat it as a technology and growth proxy.
Should I choose QQQ or QQQM?
For long-term buy-and-hold investors, QQQM may be preferable: it charges 0.15% versus QQQ’s 0.18% for the identical Nasdaq-100 index. Both are now open-end funds, since QQQ converted in December 2025, so the difference is mainly cost, liquidity, and options. The 0.03-point gap is small in any given year but accumulates over decades. QQQ is the clearer choice for options strategies and heavy trading because its options market is far larger.
How much of my portfolio should be in growth ETFs?
There is no universal answer. Allocation depends on your age, risk tolerance, time horizon, and existing holdings. Many investors already have significant growth exposure through broad market ETFs like VTI or VOO, which are market-cap weighted and heavily concentrated in large technology companies. A dedicated growth ETF can meaningfully increase that concentration, and a financial advisor can help assess how much additional tilt is appropriate. Past periods of growth outperformance do not guarantee future results.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, investment, or tax advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investing in ETFs involves risk, including possible loss of principal. Always consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.