Explore how two leading consumer staples ETFs differ in sector reach, portfolio makeup, and what that means for diversified exposure.The State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) and iShares US Consumer Staples ETF (IYK) both target U.S. consumer staples, but XLP is a lower-cost and more concentrated fund, while IYK is broader and includes a small healthcare tilt.Both funds are designed for investors seeking exposure to the consumer staples sector, but IYK (IYK 1.35%) introduces modest heal ...

Two consumer staples ETFs with very different approaches. Here's how to decide which one might suit your portfolio. The State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP 0.59%) stands out for its rock-bottom expense ratio and deep liquidity, while the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS 0.56%) offers a different weighting method for sector exposure.Both XLP and RSPS focus on U.S. consumer staples stocks, but XLP tracks the largest companies by market cap, while RSPS gives each ho ...

Expense ratios and fund structure can quietly impact long-term returns. Here’s how these two S&P 500 ETFs stack up.The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY 0.32%) and the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO 0.19%) both offer broad exposure to large-cap U.S. stocks by tracking the S&P 500 Index. While both track the same index and deliver nearly identical returns, VOO stands out for its lower fees and higher assets under management compared to SPY.For investors comparing these two giants, the decision often comes down to cost, ...

Key Points VDC has a much larger asset base than FSTA. Both ETFs charge nearly identical expense ratios and offer similar dividend yields. Performance and sector exposures are extremely similar, with only minor differences in top holdings. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (NYSEMKT:VDC) and Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples ETF (NYSEMKT:FSTA) They look almost interchangeable in terms of cost, yield, and sector exposure, but VDC stands out for its ...

Core Insights - The article compares two prominent ETFs: SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and iShares Silver Trust (SLV), highlighting their cost structures, performance, and risk profiles [1][2][7]. Cost and Size Comparison - SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) has a lower expense ratio of 0.40% compared to iShares Silver Trust (SLV) at 0.50% [3]. - As of November 14, 2025, GLD has assets under management (AUM) of $141.4 billion, significantly larger than SLV's AUM of $26.3 billion [3]. - Neither fund offers a dividend yield, making cost differences the primary factor for ongoing expenses [3]. Performance and Risk Metrics - Over the past five years, SLV experienced a maximum drawdown of 38.79%, while GLD had a lower maximum drawdown of 21.03% [4]. - An investment of $1,000 in SLV would have grown to $1,997 over five years, whereas the same investment in GLD would have grown to $2,122 [4]. Fund Composition - SPDR Gold Shares is a single-asset fund backed entirely by physical gold, with a 21-year track record and 100% classification in precious metals [5]. - iShares Silver Trust also provides direct exposure to physical silver, classified as 100% precious metals, with no underlying company holdings [6]. Investment Appeal - Both ETFs are popular due to their focus on gold and silver, which are sought-after precious metals [7]. - Gold is traditionally viewed as a store of value, with about 50% of its use in jewelry and significant applications in medical, dental, and electronics manufacturing [8]. - Silver, while also used in jewelry and coinage, has notable industrial applications, including in solar panels and electronics [9]. Investor Considerations - Conservative investors may prefer gold for its price stability, while those willing to take on more risk might opt for silver [10].

Core Insights - Vanguard's VOO and SPDR's SPY are two of the largest index funds, both aiming to mirror the S&P 500 Index, with differences primarily in costs and yield rather than portfolio content or risk [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - SPY has an expense ratio of 0.09% while VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03%, making VOO more affordable for long-term investors [3][4] - As of November 19, 2025, both funds have a 1-year return of 12.3% and a dividend yield of 1.1% [3] - SPY manages $683.1 billion in assets under management (AUM), while VOO has a significantly larger AUM of $1.5 trillion [3] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over a five-year period, SPY experienced a maximum drawdown of 24.5%, while VOO had a slightly higher drawdown of 25.5% [5] - Both funds grew an initial investment of $1,000 to $1,823 over five years, indicating identical performance in terms of growth [5] Portfolio Composition - VOO holds 505 stocks with sector allocations of 36% technology, 13% financial services, and 11% consumer cyclical, featuring top positions in NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft [6] - SPY closely mirrors VOO with 503 holdings and similar sector allocations, also including major positions in Netflix, NVIDIA, and Apple [7] Investment Considerations - The primary distinction for investors is the lower management fee of VOO compared to SPY, which has more than double the AUM [8][12] - Both funds are considered excellent long-term investments, with performance closely matching the underlying S&P 500 index [13]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) focuses on mega-cap stocks, while the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) provides broader market exposure by tracking the full S&P 500 index [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - MGK has an expense ratio of 0.07% and assets under management (AUM) of $32.9 billion, while VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $800.2 billion [3] - The one-year return for MGK is 21.14%, compared to VOO's 12.67%, and MGK has a dividend yield of 0.38% versus VOO's 1.15% [3] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.01%, while VOO had a drawdown of -24.52% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in MGK would grow to $2,100 over five years, compared to $1,861 for VOO [4] Portfolio Composition - VOO holds 504 stocks with a sector mix led by technology (36%), followed by financial services (13%) and consumer cyclical (11%) [5] - MGK is more concentrated with 66 holdings, heavily weighted towards technology (69%), and smaller allocations to consumer cyclical (16%) and healthcare (5%) [6] Investment Strategy - MGK's focus on mega-cap companies can lead to higher gains during tech rallies but also results in greater volatility due to its concentrated holdings [7] - VOO offers more diversification, including both large- and mega-cap companies, which may appeal to investors seeking stability [8][9]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) and Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) are both focused on large U.S. growth companies, particularly in the technology sector, with a comparison of costs, returns, risks, and portfolio compositions to assist investors in making informed decisions [2][4]. Cost & Size - MGK has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to QQQ's 0.20%, which benefits fee-conscious investors [3][4]. - As of November 17, 2025, MGK's one-year return is 21.82%, slightly outperforming QQQ's 21.09% [3]. - MGK has an Assets Under Management (AUM) of $31.28 billion, while QQQ is significantly larger at $385.76 billion [3]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, MGK has a maximum drawdown of -36.02%, while QQQ has a drawdown of -35.12% [5]. - An investment of $1,000 would grow to $2,080 in MGK and $2,051 in QQQ over the same period, indicating MGK's marginally better performance [5]. Portfolio Composition - QQQ, launched in 1999, tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index with 101 holdings, primarily in technology (54%), communication services (17%), and consumer cyclical (13%) [6]. - MGK focuses on the 66 largest U.S. growth stocks, with similar sector allocations: 57% technology, 15% communication services, and 13% consumer cyclical [7]. - Both funds have significant overlap in top holdings, including major companies like Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple, but MGK has slightly larger allocations to each [7][8]. Liquidity & Trading - QQQ is more liquid and has a larger number of stocks compared to MGK, which may appeal to investors seeking higher trading volumes [8]. - Both ETFs provide broad exposure to U.S. mega cap growth, although MGK's smaller number of holdings may lead to more concentrated exposures [8]. Investment Focus - Both MGK and QQQ target growth stocks with a strong emphasis on technology, which can yield above-average returns during tech market rallies but may also experience steeper declines during market volatility [10].

Core Insights - The VanEck Gold Miners ETF (GDX) offers broader exposure to gold mining with a lower expense ratio, while the Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) focuses on silver mining with a higher dividend yield [2][4][13] Cost & Size Comparison - GDX has an expense ratio of 0.51% compared to SIL's 0.65% - As of October 27, 2025, GDX has a one-year return of 69.0%, while SIL has a return of 61.0% - GDX has a lower dividend yield of 0.6% compared to SIL's 1.3% - GDX's assets under management (AUM) stand at $21.2 billion, significantly higher than SIL's $3.5 billion [3][4] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, SIL experienced a maximum drawdown of -55.93%, while GDX had a drawdown of -46.52% - An investment of $1,000 in GDX would have grown to $1,914 over five years, compared to $1,576 for SIL [5] Portfolio Composition - GDX, with 52 holdings, includes major companies like Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd, Newmont Corp, and Barrick Mining Corp, providing broad access to global gold mining [6] - SIL focuses on 38 holdings within the silver mining sector, featuring companies like Wheaton Precious, Pan American Silver Corp, and Coeur Mining Inc [7] Market Context - Both gold and silver prices surged over 50% in 2025 due to geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty, and central bank buying, with silver's price also driven by tight global supply and industrial demand [8] - Approximately 60% of global silver demand comes from the industrial sector, highlighting its importance beyond just investment [8] Investment Options - Investors can choose between various investment vehicles, including bullion, mining stocks, futures, or ETFs like GDX and SIL, which provide exposure to mining stocks without the risks associated with holding physical metals [9][10]

Core Insights - The comparison between Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC) and Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLP) highlights their performance, costs, and risk profiles in the U.S. consumer staples sector [1] Cost & Size - VDC has an expense ratio of 0.09%, while XLP has a slightly lower expense ratio of 0.08% [2] - As of October 27, 2025, VDC's one-year return is 0.2%, whereas XLP has a negative return of (2.5%) [2] - Dividend yield for VDC is 2.2%, compared to XLP's higher yield of 2.7% [2] - VDC has assets under management (AUM) of $8.5 billion, while XLP has a larger AUM of $16.4 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VDC experienced a maximum drawdown of (16.54%), slightly worse than XLP's (16.29%) [3] - An investment of $1,000 in VDC would have grown to $1,344 over five years, compared to $1,268 for XLP [3] Holdings Composition - XLP is concentrated exclusively in the consumer defensive sector with 100% of its assets in this category, holding only 37 stocks [4] - VDC also skews heavily defensive at 98% but includes over 100 companies, providing broader representation and potentially reducing single-stock risk [5] Long-term Returns - Over the past decade, XLP delivered a total return of 99.6%, while VDC outperformed with a total return of 108.1% [6] - The S&P 500 index significantly outperformed both ETFs with a return of 290.8% over the same period [6] Dividend Growth - XLP's latest quarterly dividend payment increased by 46.3% over the past decade, outperforming VDC's dividend growth of 25.9% [8]