Core Insights - The Vanguard Value ETF (VTV) focuses on large-cap value stocks, while the iShares Core S&P Total US Stock Market ETF (ITOT) aims to provide diversified access to the entire U.S. stock market, including both growth and value stocks [2][9] Cost & Size Comparison - VTV has an expense ratio of 0.04% and assets under management (AUM) of $215.5 billion, while ITOT has a slightly lower expense ratio of 0.03% and an AUM of $80.39 billion [3] - The 1-year return for VTV is 12.66%, compared to ITOT's 11.67%, and VTV offers a higher dividend yield of 2% versus ITOT's 1.09% [3] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over a 5-year period, VTV experienced a maximum drawdown of 53.7%, while ITOT had a lower maximum drawdown of 27.57% [4] - An investment of $1,000 would have grown to $1,606 in VTV and $1,707 in ITOT over the same 5-year period [4] Portfolio Composition - ITOT holds 2,498 stocks, with technology companies making up 34% of its assets, followed by financial services and consumer cyclicals [5] - VTV is concentrated in established value stocks, with significant weightings in financial services (22%), industrials (16%), and healthcare (15%) [7] Investment Implications - ITOT's broader exposure provides instant portfolio diversification and increased concentration in the technology sector, appealing to investors looking for long-term growth [9] - VTV's focus on established value stocks may offer a stronger hedge against market volatility and a higher dividend yield, attracting income-focused investors [10]

Fee-conscious investors and income seekers face distinct trade-offs as these two REIT ETFs diverge in structure and strategy.Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (SCHH +0.26%) stands out for its lower cost and larger asset base, while the State Street SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF (RWR +0.32%) delivers a higher yield and has outperformed slightly over the past five years.Both SCHH and RWR are designed to provide investors with exposure to U.S. real estate investment trusts (REITs), but they employ different approaches in terms o ...

Core Insights - The article compares two low-cost U.S. equity ETFs: State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF (SPTM) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI), highlighting their suitability for long-term investors seeking broad market exposure [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - Both SPTM and VTI have an identical expense ratio of 0.03% and similar dividend yields, with SPTM at 1.13% and VTI at 1.11% [3] - AUM for SPTM is $12 billion, while VTI has significantly higher AUM at $567 billion, indicating greater liquidity for VTI [3][8] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over a five-year period, $1,000 invested in SPTM would grow to $1,790, while the same investment in VTI would grow to $1,723 [4] - The maximum drawdown for SPTM is -24.15%, compared to -25.36% for VTI, indicating similar risk profiles [4] Portfolio Composition - VTI offers exposure to 3,527 stocks, with a significant allocation of 35% in technology, while SPTM covers 1,511 holdings with 34% in technology [5][6] - Both ETFs have similar top holdings, including Apple, Nvidia, and Microsoft, which together represent around 19% of their assets [5][6] Investor Considerations - The primary differentiators between SPTM and VTI are AUM and the number of holdings, with VTI providing broader diversification due to its larger portfolio [8][9] - Despite VTI's larger number of stocks, both funds have shown comparable returns and risk metrics, making the choice between them more about liquidity and diversification preferences [9]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF (VONG) and the Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG) are both designed for investors seeking exposure to large-cap U.S. growth stocks, but they track different indexes and exhibit subtle differences in sector allocations and portfolio breadth [1][7] Cost and Size Comparison - VUG has a lower expense ratio of 0.04% compared to VONG's 0.07% - As of December 28, 2025, VUG's one-year return is 18.02%, while VONG's is 17.17% - VUG has a dividend yield of 0.42%, slightly lower than VONG's 0.45% - VUG has a larger assets under management (AUM) of $353 billion compared to VONG's $45 billion [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the last five years, VUG has a maximum drawdown of -35.61%, while VONG's is -32.71% - A $1,000 investment in VUG would grow to $1,970 over five years, compared to $2,010 for VONG [4] Portfolio Composition - VONG tracks the Russell 1000 Growth Index and holds 391 stocks, with 55% in technology, 13% in consumer cyclical, and 12% in communication services - VUG tracks the CRSP US Large Cap Growth Index and holds 160 stocks, with 53% in technology and 14% each in communication services and consumer cyclical [5][6] Diversification and Investment Strategy - VUG's smaller portfolio of 160 holdings may lead to higher volatility and greater potential for outperformance if those stocks succeed - VONG's greater diversification with 391 stocks may limit risk during market volatility, but it also increases the chance of lower performers diluting earnings [8][9]

Core Insights - Investors in the consumer staples sector face a choice between broader coverage with the Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC) and a focused strategy with the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) [1] Cost and Size Comparison - VDC has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.09% compared to RSPS's 0.40%, making it more cost-effective for long-term investors [3][4] - VDC has a much larger asset under management (AUM) of $8.6 billion versus RSPS's $236.3 million, indicating greater investor confidence and liquidity [3] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over the past year, VDC has outperformed RSPS with a return of -0.4% compared to RSPS's -2.6% [3] - VDC has a lower maximum drawdown of -16.55% over five years compared to RSPS's -18.64%, indicating better risk management [5] Portfolio Composition - VDC holds 103 stocks and is heavily weighted towards major consumer defensive companies like Walmart (14.53%), Costco (12.00%), and Procter & Gamble (10.09%), providing broader diversification [6] - RSPS, with only 36 holdings, employs an equal-weighted strategy, giving each stock the same influence, which can lead to less diversification and a focus on smaller companies [7][9] Investment Implications - VDC is suitable for investors seeking low costs and willing to have larger companies influence returns, while RSPS appeals to those wanting a pure representation of the consumer staples sector [11]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG) and Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) provide broad U.S. growth exposure but differ in their focus and structure [1] Group 1: Cost and Size Comparison - VUG has a lower expense ratio of 0.04% compared to MGK's 0.07%, making it more cost-effective for investors [2] - As of December 22, 2025, VUG's one-year return is 17.44%, while MGK's is 18.90% [2] - VUG has assets under management (AUM) of $353 billion, significantly larger than MGK's $33 billion [2] Group 2: Performance and Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, MGK has delivered a higher total return of $2,058 compared to VUG's $1,953, although both funds have similar maximum drawdowns of -35.61% for VUG and -36.02% for MGK [3] - Both funds exhibit comparable downside risk during market stress, indicating similar performance under adverse conditions [3] Group 3: Portfolio Composition - MGK focuses on 66 mega-cap growth stocks, with 58% of its assets in technology, heavily concentrating on top holdings like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [4] - VUG is diversified across 160 large-cap growth stocks, with a sector mix of 53% technology, 14% communication services, and 14% consumer cyclical, providing a broader exposure [5] - The top three holdings in MGK constitute 38.26% of its total assets, while in VUG, they make up 33.51%, indicating a higher concentration in MGK [7] Group 4: Investment Implications - Investors seeking a targeted approach to mega-cap growth may prefer MGK, while those looking for greater diversification within the growth sector might opt for VUG [9] - Both ETFs are tech-heavy, but VUG includes a mix of large- and mega-cap stocks, offering a different risk-return profile [6]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR) and the iShares Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF (ISCV) target U.S. small-cap value stocks but differ in index tracking, sector allocations, and holdings [1][2] Cost & Size - VBR has significantly higher assets under management (AUM) at $60 billion compared to ISCV's $575 million, providing greater liquidity for investors [3][10] - ISCV has a slightly lower expense ratio of 0.06% compared to VBR's 0.07%, making it marginally more cost-effective [3] - Both funds have similar dividend yields, with VBR at 1.97% and ISCV at 1.89% [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, ISCV experienced a max drawdown of -25.34%, while VBR had a max drawdown of -24.19% [4] - A $1,000 investment would have grown to $1,531 in VBR and $1,513 in ISCV over the same period, indicating slightly better performance for VBR [4] Portfolio Composition - VBR's largest sector allocations are in industrials (19%), financial services (18%), and consumer cyclicals (13%), holding a total of 840 stocks [5] - ISCV has a broader stock exposure with nearly 1,100 stocks, focusing more on financial services (21%), consumer cyclicals (16%), and industrials (13%) [6] Investor Considerations - ISCV offers greater diversification with 256 more stocks than VBR, but it has experienced higher volatility, indicated by a higher beta of 1.22 compared to VBR's 1.12 [8] - The sector focus differs, with ISCV leaning towards financial services and VBR towards industrials, which may influence investor preferences [9][10]

Key Points RWX charges a much higher expense ratio than REET. RWX focuses on non-U.S. real estate, while REET includes both U.S. and international holdings. REET is larger and more liquid, with a lesser five-year drawdown. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › The iShares Global REIT ETF (NYSEMKT:REET) and SPDR Dow Jones International Real Estate ETF (NYSEMKT:RWX) differ most in geographic focus and cost, with REET offering broader exposure and lower fees, while RWX concentrat ...

For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.Both funds are straightforward in their design and provide the easiest way to gain exposure to the prices of precious metals. The difference in the underlying commodity, however, can lead to price swings.iShares Silver Trust, on the other hand, is designed to reflect the price performance of silver and is also 100% concentrated in its target commodity. Like GLD, it does not introduce sector or geographic tilts. Given its inception in ...

Core Insights - The article compares two popular dividend ETFs, Fidelity High Dividend ETF (FDVV) and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD), highlighting their differences in cost, yield, performance, and sector focus, which are crucial for income-focused investors [1][2]. Cost and Size - FDVV has an expense ratio of 0.15%, while SCHD has a lower expense ratio of 0.06%, making SCHD more affordable [3][4]. - As of December 16, 2025, FDVV delivered a 1-year return of 10.3%, whereas SCHD experienced a decline of 1.4% [3]. - The dividend yield for FDVV is 3.0%, compared to SCHD's higher yield of 3.7% [3][4]. - SCHD has over $73 billion in assets under management, making it the second-largest ETF focused on dividend-paying stocks, significantly larger than FDVV [8]. Performance and Risk Comparison - Over a 5-year period, FDVV had a maximum drawdown of 20.2%, while SCHD's was lower at 16.8% [5]. - An investment of $1,000 in FDVV would grow to $1,757 over 5 years, compared to $1,285 for SCHD [5]. Portfolio Composition - SCHD holds around 100 stocks, with significant allocations in energy (19%), consumer staples (19%), and healthcare (16%), focusing on companies with strong dividend histories [6]. - FDVV invests in approximately 120 stocks, with a notable tilt towards technology (26%) and financial services (22%), indicating a growth-oriented strategy [7]. Investment Strategy - SCHD tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index, emphasizing quality and consistency in dividend payers [2][9]. - FDVV targets higher-yielding stocks with a focus on growth potential, particularly in the technology sector [10].