Core Insights - The Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG) focuses on growth stocks, particularly in technology, while the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) offers broader exposure to large-cap U.S. stocks with a higher dividend yield [2][3] Cost & Size Comparison - VUG has an expense ratio of 0.04% and AUM of $357.4 billion, while VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $1.5 trillion [4] - The 1-year return for VUG is 18.0%, compared to VOO's 12.3%, and VUG has a dividend yield of 0.4% versus VOO's 1.2% [4][5] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, VUG experienced a maximum drawdown of -35.62%, while VOO had a drawdown of -24.52% [6] - An investment of $1,000 in VUG would have grown to $2,008, while the same investment in VOO would have grown to $1,866 [6] Portfolio Composition - VOO invests in all 505 companies of the S&P 500, with significant allocations in technology (36%), financial services (13%), and consumer cyclical (11%), featuring top holdings like NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft [7] - VUG has a more aggressive tilt towards growth, with 52% of its portfolio in technology and higher weightings in its top holdings, which include NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft [8] Investment Appeal - VOO is designed for investors seeking broad, low-cost U.S. equity exposure, while VUG may appeal to those looking for higher returns with a willingness to accept more volatility [9][10]

Vanguard Information Technology ETF (NYSEMKT:VGT) holds 310 stocks and is one of the broadest technology ETFs, with 98% of assets in technology, plus small allocations to communication services and financials. Its top positions include NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA), Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL), and Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), with the fund’s long track record (21.8 years) adding to its appeal for buy-and-hold investors. There are no structural quirks or leverage resets.IYW has delivered slightly stronger five-year growth, but ...

They track the same sector, yet they serve investors differently. Here’s what to know before choosing between Vanguard’s and Fidelity’s flagship tech ETFs.FTEC and VGT deliver near-identical exposure, sector weights, and top holdings within U.S. technology stocksVGT manages a far larger asset base and trades with higher liquidity, but charges a nearly identical expense ratio to FTECBoth ETFs show similar recent returns and risk profiles, with negligible differences in yield and drawdownFidelity MSCI Informa ...

The Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG 0.31%) and the iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV +0.25%) differ most in dividend yield, sector mix, and risk profile, with VIG offering lower costs but HDV providing notably higher income.Both funds target U.S. dividend-focused strategies, but Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF screens for companies with a record of raising dividends, while iShares Core High Dividend ETF emphasizes stocks with the highest current yields. This matchup explores which approach may ...

Core Insights - The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) offers lower fees and a higher dividend yield compared to the Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK), which focuses on mega-cap growth stocks with higher recent returns but greater risk [1][4][11] - MGK is more concentrated in technology and growth stocks, while VOO provides broader market exposure by tracking the S&P 500 Index [2][6][7] Cost and Size Comparison - MGK has an expense ratio of 0.07% and AUM of $31.3 billion, while VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $1.4 trillion [3] - The one-year return for MGK is 20.7%, compared to VOO's 13.3%, and MGK has a dividend yield of 0.4% versus VOO's 1.1% [3] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, MGK has a maximum drawdown of -36.01%, while VOO's maximum drawdown is -24.52% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in MGK would have grown to $2,105, while the same investment in VOO would have grown to $1,855, indicating higher returns for MGK but with greater volatility [5] Sector Allocation - VOO holds 505 stocks with significant allocations in technology (36%), financial services (13%), and consumer cyclical (11%), with top positions in Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple [6] - MGK has a more concentrated portfolio of 69 stocks, with 57% in technology, 15% in communication services, and 13% in consumer cyclical, also heavily weighted in Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple [7] Investment Considerations - The "Magnificent Seven" stocks constitute 33% of VOO's portfolio and 59% of MGK's, indicating a higher concentration in these leading tech stocks for MGK [9] - Investors with substantial holdings in S&P 500 funds like VOO may not need to add MGK, as it increases exposure to the same top stocks [10] - Both ETFs are suitable for investors looking to invest in large-cap U.S. equities, but VOO may offer a smoother investment experience with a lower average P/E ratio of 28 compared to MGK's 40 [11]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth (MGK) and Vanguard S&P 500 (VOO) differ significantly in portfolio concentration, sector exposure, and historical risk, with VOO providing broader diversification while MGK focuses on high-growth mega-cap stocks [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - Both funds are passively managed by Vanguard, with MGK having an expense ratio of 0.07% compared to VOO's 0.03%, making VOO more affordable [3] - As of November 14, 2025, MGK has a 1-year return of 20.33% while VOO has a return of 12.74% [3] - MGK has a dividend yield of 0.38% versus VOO's 1.15%, appealing to income-focused investors [3] - MGK has assets under management (AUM) of $31.28 billion, while VOO has a significantly larger AUM of $1.41 trillion [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.02%, compared to VOO's -24.53% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in MGK would have grown to $2,121 over five years, while the same investment in VOO would have grown to $1,881 [4] Sector Exposure and Holdings - VOO holds 504 stocks with significant exposure to technology (36%), financial services (13%), and consumer cyclical (11%), making it broadly diversified [5] - MGK is more concentrated with only 66 holdings, dominated by technology (57%), communication services (15%), and consumer cyclical (13%) [6] - Both funds have top positions in Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple, but MGK has greater portfolio weights in these stocks, reflecting its focus on mega-cap growth [6] Investment Strategy - MGK targets mega-cap stocks, defined as those with a market cap of at least $200 billion, while VOO tracks the S&P 500 Index, which includes a wider variety of large-cap stocks [7] - The concentration in technology within MGK may lead to higher potential returns during strong tech markets but also greater drawdowns during downturns [6][9] - VOO's diversified assortment of stocks can limit volatility in the short term, even if it results in lesser total returns [9] Summary - MGK offers more potential rewards but comes with slightly higher risk, while VOO provides more long-term stability [10]

Core Insights - The Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) and the VanEck Gold Miners ETF (GDX) both focus on mining equities but differ significantly in their investment strategies and performance metrics [1][6] Cost & Size Comparison - GDX has a lower expense ratio of 0.51% compared to SIL's 0.65%, making it more cost-effective for investors [2] - As of November 14, 2025, GDX has a larger AUM of $22.21 billion, while SIL's AUM stands at $3.73 billion [2] - SIL offers a higher dividend yield of 1.17% compared to GDX's 0.53%, appealing to income-focused investors [2][7] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over the past year, GDX has outperformed SIL with a return of 114.6% versus SIL's 97.5% [2] - In terms of five-year performance, GDX has shown a growth of $2,007 from an initial investment of $1,000, while SIL has grown to $1,550 [3][8] - GDX has a smaller max drawdown of -49.79% compared to SIL's -56.79%, indicating lower price volatility [3][8] Portfolio Composition - GDX exclusively targets gold mining companies, holding 53 positions with top holdings in Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd, Newmont Corp, and Barrick Mining Corp [4] - SIL focuses on silver miners with 40 stocks, including top holdings like Wheaton Precious, Pan American Silver Corp, and Coeur Mining Inc [5] - The differing commodity focus introduces unique risk factors and drivers for each fund [5][6]

SPLG offers the same S&P 500 exposure as SPY at a much lower expense ratioSPLG and SPY posted identical one-year returns of 13.8%SPY commands far greater trading volume and assets under management than SPLGSPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (AMEX: SPLG) and SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY +0.00%) both track the S&P 500, but SPLG stands out for its lower cost, while SPY dominates in assets under management and trading liquidity.Both the SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (AMEX: SPLG) and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY +0.00%) ...

If you're interested in broad exposure to the Technology - Semiconductors segment of the equity market, look no further than the State Street SPDR S&P Semiconductor ETF (XSD) , a passively managed exchange traded fund launched on January 31, 2006.An increasingly popular option among retail and institutional investors, passively managed ETFs offer low costs, transparency, flexibility, and tax efficiency; they are also excellent vehicles for long term investors.Additionally, sector ETFs offer convenient ways ...

Core Insights - The State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP) is a passively managed ETF launched on June 19, 2006, aimed at providing broad exposure to the Energy - Exploration segment of the equity market [1] - The ETF has gained popularity among retail and institutional investors due to its low costs, transparency, flexibility, and tax efficiency, making it suitable for long-term investment [1] Fund Overview - XOP is sponsored by State Street Investment Management and has accumulated over $1.86 billion in assets, positioning it as one of the largest ETFs in the Energy - Exploration segment [3] - The ETF seeks to match the performance of the S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Select Industry Index, which represents the oil and gas exploration and production sub-industry [4] Cost Structure - The annual operating expense ratio for XOP is 0.35%, making it one of the least expensive options in its category [5] - The ETF has a 12-month trailing dividend yield of 2.44% [5] Sector Exposure and Holdings - Approximately 99.6% of XOP's portfolio is allocated to the Energy sector, providing significant sector-specific exposure [6] - The top three holdings include Murphy Oil Corp (2.97%), CNX Resources Corp, and Range Resources Corp, with the top 10 holdings accounting for about 27.92% of total assets [7] Performance Metrics - As of November 11, 2025, XOP has gained about 1.08% year-to-date but is down approximately 3.87% over the past year [8] - The ETF has traded between $101.91 and $148.67 in the last 52 weeks, with a beta of 0.94 and a standard deviation of 28.49% over the trailing three-year period, indicating a higher risk profile [8] Alternatives - Other ETFs in the energy exploration space include Invesco Energy Exploration & Production ETF (PXE) and iShares U.S. Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (IEO), with PXE having $70.88 million in assets and IEO having $443.42 million [11]