Core Insights - The iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and abrdn Physical Platinum Shares ETF (PPLT) differ significantly in cost, assets under management, and recent performance, with IAU being more cost-effective and larger in scale, while PPLT has shown superior returns over the past year [1][3][4] Cost and Size Comparison - IAU has an expense ratio of 0.25%, while PPLT's is 0.60%, which could impact long-term investors [4] - IAU's assets under management (AUM) stand at $68.8 billion compared to PPLT's $2.86 billion, indicating a much larger scale for IAU [3][4] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over the past year, IAU delivered a return of 67.2%, while PPLT outperformed with a return of 135.6% [3] - The maximum drawdown over five years for IAU was -21.82%, compared to PPLT's -35.73%, suggesting IAU has experienced less volatility [5] Fund Composition - PPLT is focused on providing exposure to platinum, appealing to investors looking for diversification beyond gold, and has been operational for 16 years [6] - IAU offers exposure to physical gold, tracking gold's spot price minus its expense ratio, and is one of the largest gold ETFs available [9] Market Context - Both ETFs benefited from a significant rally in precious metals in 2025, driven by Federal Reserve rate cuts, inflation concerns, and substantial central bank gold purchases [8] - Platinum's performance was further boosted by supply shortages from South Africa and increasing industrial demand, particularly from hydrogen fuel cells [8][9] Investment Considerations - IAU is positioned as a lower-cost option with greater liquidity and a long-standing reputation as a stable monetary asset, while PPLT may appeal to those anticipating continued industrial demand for platinum despite its higher volatility [10]

IEFA holds a broader basket, with 2,589 stocks and a similar sector mix: financial services (22%), industrials (20%), and healthcare (11%). Its top holdings—Asml Holding Nv (AMS: ASML.AS) at 1.89%, Roche Holding Par Ag (SIX: ROG.SW) at 1.23%, and Astrazeneca Plc (LSE: AZN.L) at 1.22%—each make up a little over 1% of assets. IEFA’s huge size, with nearly $169 billion in assets under management (AUM), may support liquidity for large investors, while both funds have no structural quirks.SPDW provides exposure ...

Key Points SCHA charges slightly lower fees than IJR and holds a much broader basket of small-cap stocks. IJR delivered a milder drawdown and a slightly higher dividend yield over the past year. SCHA outperformed IJR on one-year total return but has lagged slightly over five years. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Schwab U.S. Small-Cap ETF (NYSEMKT:SCHA) charges a marginally lower expense ratio and offers broader diversification than iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF (NYSEM ...

Explore how differences in cost, holdings, and risk profiles set these two popular growth ETFs apart for investors.The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK +0.60%) and the Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG +0.52%) both offer convenient, low-cost exposure to U.S. large-cap growth stocks, but their approaches differ: MGK is more concentrated in a handful of mega-cap names, while SCHG spreads its bets more widely. This comparison looks at their costs, returns, risk, and portfolio construction to help investo ...

Core Insights - The article compares two leading U.S. REIT ETFs: Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (SCHH) and State Street SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF (RWR), focusing on fees, yield, and fund history to guide investor choices [1][2]. Cost & Size Comparison - SCHH has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to RWR's 0.25%, resulting in annual fees of $7 versus $25 for every $10,000 invested [3][8]. - SCHH has an AUM of $8.8 billion, significantly higher than RWR's $1.7 billion, which may provide greater liquidity for investors [3][9]. Performance & Risk Analysis - Over five years, a $1,000 investment in SCHH would grow to $1,141, while the same investment in RWR would grow to $1,180 [4]. - The maximum drawdown for SCHH is -33.26%, slightly worse than RWR's -32.56% [4]. Portfolio Composition - RWR tracks 102 U.S. REITs, with major holdings in Prologis, Welltower, and Equinix, accounting for over 24% of its assets [5]. - SCHH has a broader portfolio with 123 holdings, including similar top positions as RWR but with different weightings [5]. Yield Comparison - RWR offers a higher dividend yield of 3.78% compared to SCHH's 3.04%, appealing to income-focused investors [3][9].

Core Insights - The iShares SP Mid-Cap 400 Value ETF (IJJ) and the iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF (ISCV) target similar markets but differ in size, cost, and market capitalization focus [1] Cost & Size Comparison - IJJ has an expense ratio of 0.18% and AUM of $7.96 billion, while ISCV has a lower expense ratio of 0.06% and AUM of $581.76 million [2] - The 1-year return for IJJ is 8.79%, compared to ISCV's 11.07%, and ISCV also offers a higher dividend yield of 1.97% versus IJJ's 1.73% [2] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over a 5-year period, $1,000 invested in IJJ would grow to $1,551, while the same investment in ISCV would grow to $1,485 [4] - The maximum drawdown for IJJ is -22.68%, while ISCV has a higher drawdown of -25.35% [4] Portfolio Composition - ISCV tracks a small-cap value universe with 1,097 stocks, heavily weighted in financial services (21%), consumer cyclicals (15%), and industrials (13%) [5] - IJJ focuses on mid-cap value with 296 stocks, primarily in financial services (19%), industrials (15%), and consumer cyclicals (12%) [6] Investment Implications - ISCV's lower expense ratio and slightly higher yield may attract cost-conscious investors [3][9] - ISCV has a trailing P/E ratio of 15.50, compared to IJJ's 18.30, indicating ISCV as a more affordable investment option [10]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC) has outperformed the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) by over 2% in the last year due to lower fees and broader diversification [1][14] - VDC offers lower costs and slightly stronger recent performance, while RSPS provides a concentrated, equal-weighted approach within the consumer staples sector [1][2] Cost Comparison - VDC has an expense ratio of 0.09%, significantly lower than RSPS's 0.40% [3][4] - VDC's assets under management (AUM) stand at $8.6 billion, compared to RSPS's $236.2 million [3] Performance Metrics - The one-year return for VDC is 0.05%, while RSPS has a return of (3.2%) as of December 17, 2025 [3] - Over five years, VDC has grown $1,000 to $1,244, while RSPS has decreased it to $988 [5] Portfolio Composition - VDC holds 105 stocks, with a portfolio that is 98% consumer defensive, featuring major positions in Walmart (14.53%), Costco (12.00%), and Procter & Gamble (10.09%) [6][12] - RSPS consists of 38 equally weighted stocks, with top holdings including Dollar General (3.52%) and Monster Beverage (3.34%) [8][12] Risk Assessment - The maximum drawdown over five years for VDC is (16.55%), while RSPS has a higher drawdown of (18.64%) [5] - VDC has a beta of 0.56, indicating slightly higher volatility compared to RSPS's beta of 0.52 [3] Investment Implications - Both ETFs focus on the defensive consumer staples sector, appealing to investors seeking stability and reliable dividends during economic uncertainty [13][14] - Investors must consider the trade-offs between VDC's lower costs and concentration in large-cap stocks versus RSPS's equal weighting that may reduce single-stock risk [11][14]

Core Insights - The article compares two popular ETFs, ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD), focusing on their methodologies, cost structures, and sector allocations to help investors choose the right fit for dividend-focused investments [2][3]. Cost and Size Comparison - NOBL has an expense ratio of 0.35% and assets under management (AUM) of $11.3 billion, while SCHD has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.06% and AUM of $72.5 billion [4][5]. - The one-year total return for NOBL is 6.8%, compared to 4.3% for SCHD, and the dividend yield for NOBL is 2.2%, while SCHD offers a higher yield of 3.8% [4][10]. Performance and Risk Metrics - Over a five-year period, NOBL experienced a maximum drawdown of 17.91%, while SCHD had a slightly lower drawdown of 16.82%. The growth of a $1,000 investment over five years is $1,308 for NOBL and $1,298 for SCHD [6]. Portfolio Composition - SCHD tracks 102 large U.S. dividend stocks, with significant allocations in energy (19.3%), consumer staples (18.5%), and healthcare (16.1%). Key holdings include Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck & Co, and ConocoPhillips [7]. - NOBL focuses on 70 S&P 500 companies with at least 25 consecutive years of dividend growth, with major sector allocations in industrials (22.4%), consumer defensive (22%), and financial services (12.4%). Top positions include Albemarle, Cardinal Health, and C.H. Robinson Worldwide [8]. Investment Implications - SCHD is highlighted for its higher yield and lower costs, making it attractive for income-oriented investors, while NOBL is noted for its focus on dividend growth and stability, appealing to those seeking reliable income from established companies [10][11].

Core Insights - RWX and HAUZ provide different approaches to international real estate exposure, with RWX having a higher expense ratio and fewer holdings compared to HAUZ, which offers lower fees and higher yields [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - HAUZ has an expense ratio of 0.10%, significantly lower than RWX's 0.59%, which is six times higher [3][4] - HAUZ's one-year return is 22.7%, while RWX's is 26.9%, indicating RWX's better short-term performance [3] - HAUZ offers a dividend yield of 3.91%, compared to RWX's 3.36% [3] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over five years, HAUZ experienced a maximum drawdown of -34.5%, while RWX had a slightly higher drawdown of -35.9% [5] - A $1,000 investment in HAUZ would have grown to $1,056 over five years, compared to $1,014 for RWX, indicating HAUZ's superior long-term performance [5][8] Portfolio Composition - RWX tracks the Dow Jones Global ex-U.S. Select Real Estate Securities Index with 120 holdings, focusing on major companies like Mitsui Fudosan Co. [6] - HAUZ has a broader portfolio with 408 holdings, including significant positions in Goodman Group and Mitsubishi Estate Company, appealing for diversification [7] Historical Performance - Since 2013, HAUZ has achieved an annual total return growth of 3.3%, while RWX's growth was only 1.4% [8] - HAUZ's better performance is attributed to its lower expense ratio and higher dividend yield, alongside a smaller five-year drawdown [8] Investment Considerations - Both ETFs have overlapping holdings, with five of the top ten positions being the same, but HAUZ is favored for its cost efficiency and broader diversification [9] - Investors should be aware of the geographical focus, with both funds having significant allocations to Japanese REITs and other countries like Australia and the U.K. [9]

Core Insights - The State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) has lower fees, a deeper sector focus, and significantly higher assets under management compared to the iShares US Consumer Staples ETF (IYK), which has shown slightly better recent returns and a shallower maximum drawdown [1][2]. Cost and Size Comparison - XLP has an expense ratio of 0.08%, while IYK charges 0.38% [3][4]. - Both ETFs offer a dividend yield of 2.7% [3][4]. - Assets under management for XLP stand at $14.7 billion, compared to IYK's $1.2 billion [3]. Performance and Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, IYK experienced a maximum drawdown of 15.04%, while XLP had a drawdown of 16.31% [5]. - A $1,000 investment in IYK would have grown to $1,178, while the same investment in XLP would have grown to $1,163 over five years [5]. Holdings and Sector Exposure - XLP holds 36 stocks, focusing exclusively on U.S. consumer defensive companies, with major positions in Walmart, Costco, and Procter & Gamble [6]. - IYK contains 54 stocks, with a broader allocation of 85% in consumer defensive, 12% in healthcare, and 2% in basic materials, featuring top holdings like Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, and Philip Morris International [7]. Investment Returns - Over the last five years, IYK provided a total return of $298 on a $1,000 investment, while XLP yielded a return of $314 [8]. - Over a ten-year period, a $1,000 investment in IYK grew to $1,321, whereas XLP's equivalent investment grew to $1,010 [9].