Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Investors who want technology exposure with less dependence on a handful of AI-linked mega-cap stocks can look at broad U.S. market funds, international equity funds, and rules-based low-volatility funds. Each changes exposure in a different way; none removes technology risk or guarantees lower future volatility. The choice is less about finding one perfect replacement for AI stocks and more about deciding which concentration—single-company, sector, geographic, or overall market risk—you want to reduce.
The figures below are dated snapshots, not current portfolio guarantees. Check each fund issuer’s latest holdings, weights, methodology, and costs before making a decision. This is general educational information, not an individualized portfolio recommendation.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
At a glance
| Name | Best for | Key spec | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) | Broadening U.S. stock exposure beyond a narrow technology-sector fund | 3,544 stocks; 35.9% technology allocation in the cited fact sheet | November 2026 |
| Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) | Adding developed- and emerging-market stocks outside the United States | More than 8,000 non-U.S. stocks, according to Vanguard | November 2026 |
| Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF (SPLV) | Considering a rules-based screen based on historical volatility | 100 S&P 500 stocks selected by trailing one-year volatility and weighted inversely by volatility, as described by Kiplinger | November 2026 |
Snapshot dates matter: VTI’s cited fact sheet reports holdings and total assets as of June 30, 2025, while its technology-sector allocation is dated December 31, 2024. VXUS’s cited stock count comes from Vanguard’s investor education page. SPLV’s methodology and historical risk comparison are reported by Kiplinger. “Checked” is the article’s date label; it does not mean these fund snapshots are November 2026 holdings.
What are the best alternatives to concentrated AI-stock exposure?
The best fit depends on what you are trying to diversify. A broad U.S. market fund spreads exposure across more companies, an international fund adds stocks from outside the United States, and a low-volatility fund applies a historical-risk screen to a defined stock universe. These approaches are not interchangeable, and each can still hold technology companies or lose value.
Popular on Amazon
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
It also helps to distinguish AI stocks from technology exposure. A portfolio can own technology companies without being built around a few companies investors associate with AI. Conversely, a broad index can still have substantial exposure to the largest technology firms. The fund names and labels alone do not tell you how concentrated the actual holdings are.
Vanguard warns that narrowly focused sector ETFs cover only a small part of the market and that investors should be prepared for wide swings and potentially large losses. Its investor education page points readers seeking broader industry coverage toward broadly diversified funds. That is a reason to examine diversification—not a promise that a broader fund will be calmer in every market.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →How does a broad U.S. market fund change the risk?
A total-market fund can reduce dependence on a single sector or company by owning a much wider set of U.S. stocks, but it does not remove large-company or technology exposure. VTI is one example: Vanguard reported 3,544 stocks in its fact sheet dated June 30, 2025, yet the fund still had notable exposure to its largest holdings and the technology sector.
In that fact sheet, the ten largest holdings made up 33.3% of net assets as of June 30, 2025. The technology sector accounted for 35.9%, using sector-allocation data dated December 31, 2024. Vanguard also reported a 0.03% expense ratio and a 16.26% standard deviation based on the fund’s last three years of monthly returns. These numbers describe particular periods and dates; they are not promises about future holdings, costs, or volatility. See the Vanguard VTI fact sheet for the source data and definitions.
The practical distinction is breadth, not immunity. A total-market fund includes companies across large-, mid-, and small-cap segments, so an investor is not relying solely on a technology-sector fund. But broad-market indexes weight companies by market value, and large technology firms can remain important positions. If a few mega-cap stocks fall sharply, a broad-market fund can fall too.
VTI may be worth examining if your concern is that a focused technology or AI-stock position dominates your equity exposure and you want a wider U.S. company mix. It is less useful as a claim that you have removed technology risk. Before deciding, review current sector weights and top holdings, compare them with your existing positions, and note the dates underlying any figures.
Also popular on Amazon
What does international diversification add?
An international equity fund changes the geographic distribution of stock exposure. Vanguard says VXUS holds more than 8,000 non-U.S. stocks, spanning developed and emerging markets; it describes VTI as holding more than 3,500 domestic stocks. That provides a different source of diversification from simply adding more U.S. companies.
Geographic diversification is not a low-volatility guarantee. The cited Vanguard material supports the difference in stock universes, but it does not establish that international stocks will fluctuate less than U.S. stocks. International holdings introduce exposure to other countries and currencies, and their sector mix can differ from the U.S. market. Those differences can help diversify a portfolio in some periods and can also contribute to losses or underperformance in others.
When considering VXUS, check the current country and sector exposures, costs, and how much international equity you already own through other funds. A fund label or stock count cannot show whether the resulting portfolio matches your objectives. If your existing portfolio already has substantial international exposure, adding another international fund may increase holdings without meaningfully changing the concentration that concerns you.
International exposure addresses a different question from a low-volatility screen. It asks whether your stock portfolio depends too heavily on one country or market, not whether its returns will be smoother. Vanguard’s sector ETF education page provides its stated VTI and VXUS stock counts and discusses the risks of narrow sector funds.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsCan a low-volatility ETF reduce the swings?
A low-volatility ETF selects or weights stocks according to a set of rules based on historical volatility. SPLV is one example: Kiplinger describes it as selecting 100 S&P 500 stocks with the lowest trailing one-year volatility and weighting them inversely by volatility. That makes the fund’s holdings and weights methodology-driven, rather than a permanent list of the least risky companies.
Rules can change the portfolio’s sector mix and the companies it owns. A historical-volatility screen measures past price movement over a specified period; it does not identify stocks that cannot fall sharply. Results depend on the universe being screened, the lookback window, rebalancing rules, and the way positions are weighted. Those details should be checked in the fund’s current methodology and issuer disclosures, since a low-volatility label by itself is not a promise.
Also popular on Amazon
Kiplinger reported that from May 5, 2011, through January 28, 2026, SPLV had a beta of 0.70 and annualized volatility of 14.59%, compared with 17.24% annualized volatility for an SPDR S&P 500 ETF proxy. These are backward-looking statistics from Kiplinger’s stated analysis, not forecasts. They do not establish that SPLV will fall less in the next downturn or outperform in the next period. See Kiplinger’s low-volatility ETF analysis for the method and reported comparison.
A low-volatility strategy may be relevant if your principal concern is historical price variability and you are willing to accept the possibility of different sector or stock exposures. Compare its method and current holdings with your existing investments. Also compare risk figures only when the periods, definitions, and benchmarks are reasonably aligned; a number without those details can make unlike measures look comparable.
Recommended Free Tools
Why might a technology-sector ETF be the wrong substitute?
A technology-sector ETF keeps targeted exposure to technology rather than broadening it. It can be useful for a deliberate sector allocation, but it does not meet the goal of reducing technology concentration by itself. The holdings illustrate how a fund with dozens of positions can still depend heavily on a few large companies.
State Street’s XLK fact sheet reported 73 holdings as of March 31, 2026. NVIDIA represented 15.50%, Apple 13.63%, and Microsoft 10.05%; together, those three positions were 39.18% of the fund on that date. The snapshot shows why a holdings count alone is not a sufficient measure of diversification. Consult the State Street XLK fact sheet for the date, holdings, and risk disclosure.
Those figures are not a claim about XLK’s holdings today or about every technology fund. Holdings and weights change, and sector classifications do not capture every company’s economic relationship to AI. A broad-market fund can own large technology companies, while an industry label is not a complete map of which businesses may benefit from or be affected by AI.
How should you compare funds before choosing?
Compare the portfolio effect you want, not just the ETF name. The same fund can be broad by one measure and concentrated by another: a fund may own thousands of stocks but still allocate a large share to its biggest positions or one sector.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Also popular on Amazon
- Identify the concentration you want to reduce. Is it a single stock, a few mega-cap holdings, the technology sector, U.S.-only exposure, or historical price variability? A fund that addresses one dimension may not address the others.
- Read the latest holdings and weights. Note the top positions and their combined weight, plus sector and geographic allocations. Compare those figures with your other investments, not only with the fund’s benchmark.
- Check the fund’s construction method. For a broad index, understand which market it covers and how positions are weighted. For an international fund, inspect countries and sectors. For a low-volatility fund, review its screened universe, measurement window, weighting, and rebalance rules.
- Compare risk statistics on matching terms. Record the time period, return frequency, benchmark or proxy, and definition used. Historical standard deviation, beta, and annualized volatility are different descriptions of past behavior; none predicts the next decline.
- Review costs and trading details. Confirm the current expense ratio and other applicable costs in issuer disclosures. ETF shares trade in the secondary market through a stockbroker, and VTI’s fact sheet notes that an investor may pay more or receive less than net asset value when trading.
- Recheck the data before acting. Holdings, weights, screens, and costs can change. Use the issuer’s current materials rather than treating an older fact sheet or published comparison as a permanent portfolio description.
This process can clarify trade-offs without implying that one fund is right for every investor. It also helps avoid the common mistake of comparing a dated risk statistic for one fund with a current holdings snapshot for another and treating them as one synchronized picture.
What are the main trade-offs among these approaches?
| Approach | What it changes | What it does not establish | What to inspect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Broad U.S. market fund (VTI example) | Ownership across large-, mid-, and small-cap U.S. stocks | It does not eliminate technology or mega-cap exposure | Technology share, top holdings, sector weights, expense ratio, and overlap with current holdings |
| International equity fund (VXUS example) | Geographic exposure through non-U.S. stocks | It does not establish lower volatility | Country and currency exposure, sector mix, costs, and existing international holdings |
| Low-volatility strategy (SPLV example) | Stock selection and weights based on a historical-volatility rule | It does not guarantee low future volatility or smaller losses | Index method, screening window, rebalance rules, sector tilts, costs, and comparable-period risk data |
| Technology-sector fund (XLK example) | Maintains targeted sector exposure | It does not diversify away technology concentration by itself | Top holdings, industry weights, and current issuer disclosures |
What should you avoid assuming?
“Broad” does not mean “evenly spread.” VTI held 3,544 stocks in the June 30, 2025 snapshot, but the ten largest made up 33.3% of net assets. A large number of holdings can coexist with meaningful concentration at the top.
“Low volatility” does not mean “low risk.” A screen based on trailing price movement can select a different portfolio at its next review, and historical risk measures do not forecast future declines. The historical SPLV comparison is informative only with its stated dates and comparison proxy.
“International” does not mean “stable.” It changes geographic exposure, and that exposure can behave differently from U.S. stocks. The available source supports a difference in stock universe, not a guarantee of lower fluctuation.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
“Technology” does not map perfectly to “AI.” Sector categories and company exposure to AI are not identical. Nor does the presence of AI-linked firms in a broad-market fund mean that the fund is equivalent to a concentrated AI-stock position. Review actual holdings and weights rather than relying on category names.
A past risk figure is not a forward-looking promise. Vanguard states that returns and principal value fluctuate and that past performance does not guarantee future results. State Street gives the same general caution for XLK. The VTI fact sheet’s 16.26% standard deviation covers a defined three-year window of monthly returns; it is a historical measurement, not a forecast.
Also popular on Amazon
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
How can you use these alternatives without making an allocation guess?
Start from the portfolio you already have, including funds that may appear diversified but hold many of the same large companies. Then identify the risk dimension you want to change and compare fund disclosures against that goal. This is more useful than choosing a percentage based on a generic rule, since an appropriate allocation depends on an investor’s circumstances and cannot be inferred from these fund snapshots.
If the issue is sector concentration, compare your current technology exposure with a broad-market option and inspect the residual technology allocation. If the issue is U.S.-only exposure, evaluate whether adding international holdings changes geographic balance. If the issue is past price swings, examine the low-volatility methodology and historical statistics while keeping their limits in view. More than one of these concerns may apply, but combining funds does not automatically make a portfolio diversified; the resulting weights and overlap still matter.
Funds are accessed through brokerage accounts. Vanguard’s VTI fact sheet says shares are bought and sold in the secondary market through a stockbroker and may trade above or below net asset value. That is a trading consideration, not a reason to select a particular fund or broker. Check the fund’s issuer disclosures and your account’s terms before placing an order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why can an ETF’s market price be different from its net asset value?
ETF shares trade between investors in the secondary market, so the price at which a share changes hands may be higher or lower than the fund’s net asset value. Vanguard specifically flags this possibility in the VTI fact sheet; check the issuer’s trading and risk disclosures before placing an order.
Can an ETF have thousands of stocks and still be concentrated?
Yes. The count describes how many positions a fund owns, not how evenly its assets are distributed. For example, Vanguard’s June 30, 2025 VTI fact sheet reported 3,544 stocks while its ten largest holdings represented 33.3% of net assets.
Do low-volatility funds use the same screening rules?
Not necessarily; each fund’s index or portfolio method can define its universe, lookback period, weighting, and rebalancing differently. The SPLV method described by Kiplinger is one example, so check the specific fund’s current methodology rather than assuming all low-volatility ETFs behave alike.
