It’s often said it’s nearly impossible to consistently beat the market. But, haven’t growth funds done just that?

So the most common piece of investing advice I hear is that it’s nearly impossible to consistently beat the market so you should just invest in broad market funds.

However, growth funds, not even actively managed ones, such as SCHG and VUG, have consistently beat the market since inception.

And it makes sense. Growth funds are essentially broad market funds minus those stocks that one would expect to appreciate less due to less growth potential, more dividend payouts, etc. So I don’t even think you can call this an aberration, it’s pretty logical.

Is there something obvious I’m missing here? Because it seems like an almost guaranteed way to “beat the market”.