What's Inside Popular ESG ETFs? (2026 Holdings Analysis)

ESG ETFs can hold major technology companies while applying different exclusions and portfolio rules. In the issuer snapshots examined here, NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon and Meta appear in both ESGU and ESGV. That overlap does not make the funds identical or establish that their screening has failed.

The useful question is whether a fund's actual methodology and holdings match your exclusions. This guide compares two documented portfolios, then links selected companies to Mashinii's research. It replaces the earlier unsupported claim that we had audited the top holdings of ten ETFs.

ESGU and ESGV: different portfolios and screens

iShares' ESGU page describes a large- and mid-cap US strategy seeking ESG characteristics while retaining risk and return characteristics similar to the MSCI USA Index. It lists screens concerning civilian firearms, controversial weapons, tobacco, thermal coal and oil sands, with category-specific definitions and thresholds. The page reports 268 holdings as of 7 October 2026.

Vanguard's ESGV fact sheet describes a market-cap-weighted, all-cap US index and reports 1,231 stocks as of 30 June 2026. Its screens include specified activities involving weapons, fossil fuels and other categories, plus conduct and diversity criteria.

Those descriptions are not interchangeable. Neither is a promise to exclude every company that a particular reader considers unethical. Check the definitions, revenue thresholds and conduct tests instead of treating “ESG” as one universal standard.

Selected holdings, with dates and weights

The ESGU figures below come from its issuer holdings file dated 7 October 2026. ESGV figures come from the 30 June 2026 fact sheet linked above. These are different dates, so this is a comparison of disclosed snapshots, not a same-day portfolio-overlap calculation.

For ESGU, Alphabet combines GOOG 3.50% and GOOGL 1.92%. Counting only one share class would understate that issuer exposure. The table selects six companies for comparison; it is not either fund's complete top ten. Holdings and weights change, and the linked download may show a later date when you open it.

What Mashinii's company scores add

The following five dimensions show why a company can raise different concerns for different readers. These are stored company assessments from April 2026, checked on 8 October 2026. They are separate from the fund holdings dates and are not the ESG ratings used by either index provider.

The scale runs from −100 to +100. Zero is a numeric assessment, not a certification of good conduct. This table does not calculate a fund score, and its selected dimensions should not be described as an average of all eleven values.

For Alphabet, the linked scores use Mashinii's GOOGL.US record; the holdings table aggregates its two share classes. That is an explicit research-record choice, not a claim that separate database records always have identical assessments. Open the links to inspect the evidence and our methodology.

Apple's positive technology score, Microsoft's zero environmental score and NVIDIA's positive worker score illustrate why blanket claims that every dimension is negative would be inaccurate. Conversely, passing an index screen does not erase a negative assessment under a different framework.

Why can a screened fund hold these companies?

A screening rule may exclude a defined business activity above a threshold. A broader ethical assessment may consider a company's customers, contracts, supply chain or conduct even when that activity does not meet the index's exclusion definition. A difference between those results is not, by itself, proof of misrepresentation.

Vanguard's portfolio document explains that FTSE determines the types and levels of involvement that trigger exclusions, and that these can differ by activity. Read those definitions before interpreting a weapons or fossil-fuel exclusion as an absolute prohibition on every indirect connection.

Our ESG ratings and independent evidence guide discusses the distinction between assessment approaches. The appropriate test is whether a fund follows its stated rules and whether those rules fit your priorities. It is not enough to find one controversial company and assume all ESG approaches are equivalent.

Corrections to the earlier ten-fund list

The earlier version combined unsupported fund sizes, approximate weights and incorrect product identities. For example, PRBLX is the investor share class of the Parnassus Core Equity mutual fund, as shown on Parnassus' fund page. It should not have been listed as a “PRBLX/VOTE” ETF.

We have removed the unverified ten-product ranking, the unsupported 2025 inflow figure and the claim of more than 90% overlap with standard index funds. A defensible overlap figure requires complete portfolios on a consistent date and a stated calculation. Having several familiar names in common is insufficient.

For a weight-based comparison, one possible method is to add the smaller of each shared holding's two portfolio weights, after making consistent decisions about share classes, cash and derivatives. A name-count comparison answers a different question. Neither should be inferred from the six rows above.

How to audit your own ESG ETF

1. Identify the exact product. Use the ticker, issuer and share class; similarly named products can follow different strategies.
2. Save a dated holdings file. Keep the full portfolio and its date, not just a screenshot of the largest names.
3. Write down your exclusions. Decide what matters to you, including any tolerance for indirect involvement, before judging the result.
4. Read the methodology. Check activity definitions, thresholds, controversy rules and review frequency.
5. Research relevant holdings. Follow the company links above or use Mashinii's company search. Record what is known, disputed or unscored.
6. Keep investment characteristics separate. Costs, diversification, tax treatment and risk still need their own evaluation; an ethical preference does not establish expected returns.

The quoted fees imply roughly $15 versus $9 per year on a constant $10,000 balance, before other costs. That arithmetic is an illustration, not a recommendation or a prediction of your total expenses.

A useful portfolio review ends with specific findings: which companies conflict with your criteria, how much exposure they represent, and whether the fund's stated rules explain their inclusion. That is more informative than declaring every ESG fund either ethical or worthless.

Reviewed and corrected 8 October 2026: replaced unsupported ten-fund claims with dated ESGU/ESGV evidence, corrected company scores and product identity, and clarified share classes, screening thresholds and comparison limits. Existing title, URL and publication date preserved.