Core Insights - Investors are presented with a choice between the SPDR Gold Shares, which has significant assets under management, and the Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF, which offers lower costs for similar gold exposure [1][9]. Cost and Size Comparison - The Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has an expense ratio of 0.18%, while the SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) has a higher expense ratio of 0.40% [3][11]. - As of October 31, 2025, AAAU has a one-year return of 45.4%, slightly outperforming GLD's return of 45.2% [3]. - Assets under management (AUM) for AAAU stand at $2.2 billion, compared to GLD's $134.0 billion, indicating a significant size difference [3][11]. Performance and Risk Metrics - Over a five-year period, the maximum drawdown for AAAU is -20.94%, while GLD's is -21.03%, showing comparable risk profiles [4]. - The growth of an initial investment of $1,000 over five years would yield $2,092 for AAAU and $2,069 for GLD, indicating similar performance despite the size difference [4]. Fund Structure and Holdings - Both ETFs are designed to track the price of physical gold and hold only gold bullion, ensuring straightforward exposure to gold's performance [5][6]. - SPDR Gold Shares is categorized as 100% Basic Materials, while Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF is classified as 100% Real Estate, which is a labeling quirk rather than actual exposure [5][6]. Market Context - The price of gold has increased by over 50% in 2025, driven by geopolitical tensions and economic factors, leading central banks to increase their gold reserves [7].

Core Insights - The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) and ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) differ significantly in cost, breadth, and yield, with VYM being more affordable and holding a larger number of stocks [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - VYM has an expense ratio of 0.06%, significantly lower than NOBL's 0.35% [3] - As of October 31, 2025, VYM's one-year return is 10.0%, while NOBL's is -1.8% [3] - VYM offers a dividend yield of 2.5%, compared to NOBL's 2.1% [3] - VYM has assets under management (AUM) of $81.3 billion, while NOBL has $11.1 billion [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VYM has a maximum drawdown of 15.85%, while NOBL's is 17.92% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in VYM would grow to $1,734 over five years, compared to $1,396 for NOBL [4] Portfolio Composition - VYM holds 589 U.S. stocks, with significant allocations in Financial Services (22%), Technology (16%), and Healthcare (12%) [5] - Top holdings in VYM include Broadcom Inc (1.73%), JPMorgan Chase (0.25%), and Exxon Mobil (2.38%) [5] - NOBL consists of 70 equally weighted stocks, focusing on long-term dividend growth, with notable holdings like C.H. Robinson Worldwide (0.02%), Cardinal Health (0.02%), and Caterpillar (0.02%) [6] Investment Strategy - VYM tracks the FTSE All-World High Dividend Yield Index, excluding real estate investment trusts and focusing on companies with higher-than-average dividend yields [8] - NOBL tracks S&P 500 companies that have consistently raised dividends for at least 25 years, emphasizing proven dividend raisers [9]

Both the Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ 0.22%) and the Vanguard Long-Term Treasury ETF (VGLT 0.19%) aim to track the performance of long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, appealing to investors seeking interest rate sensitivity and government-backed stability.This comparison unpacks their similarities and subtle distinctions to help clarify which may align better with specific priorities.Snapshot (cost & size)MetricSCHQVGLTIssuerSchwabVanguardExpense ratio0.03%0.03%1-yr return (as of 2025-10-20)2.70%2.73% ...

Looking for broad exposure to the Consumer Discretionary - Retail segment of the equity market? You should consider the State Street SPDR S&P Retail ETF (XRT) , a passively managed exchange traded fund launched on June 19, 2006.Passively managed ETFs are becoming increasingly popular with institutional as well as retail investors due to their low cost, transparency, flexibility and tax efficiency. They are excellent vehicles for long term investors.Sector ETFs also provide investors access to a broad group ...

Core Insights - The SPDR S&P Bank ETF (KBE) is designed for broad exposure to the Financials - Banking segment, launched on November 8, 2005, and is favored for its low costs and tax efficiency [1][2] Fund Overview - KBE is sponsored by State Street Investment Management and has over $1.37 billion in assets, making it one of the larger ETFs in the Financials - Banking segment [3] - The ETF aims to match the performance of the S&P Banks Select Industry Index, which includes publicly traded banks and thrifts [4] Cost Structure - KBE has an annual operating expense ratio of 0.35%, positioning it as one of the least expensive options in its category, with a 12-month trailing dividend yield of 2.56% [5] Sector Exposure and Holdings - The ETF is fully allocated to the Financials sector, with about 100% of its portfolio dedicated to this area [6] - Comerica Inc (CMA) represents approximately 1.22% of total assets, with the top 10 holdings accounting for about 11.19% of total assets under management [7] Performance Metrics - KBE has increased by about 4.28% year-to-date and 8.13% over the past year, with a trading range between $45.85 and $62.76 in the last 52 weeks [8] - The ETF has a beta of 1.02 and a standard deviation of 28.17% over the trailing three-year period, indicating a higher risk profile [8] Investment Alternatives - KBE holds a Zacks ETF Rank of 2 (Buy), indicating strong potential for investors seeking exposure to the Financials ETFs segment [9] - Other ETFs in the space include First Trust NASDAQ Bank ETF (FTXO) and Invesco KBW Bank ETF (KBWB), with respective assets of $238.26 million and $5.66 billion [10]

Core Viewpoint - The Invesco S&P SmallCap Momentum ETF (XSMO) is a significant player in the Small Cap Growth segment of the US equity market, with over $2 billion in assets, providing investors with diversified exposure to this sector [1]. Group 1: Fund Overview - XSMO was launched on March 3, 2005, and is passively managed to track the Small Cap Growth segment [1]. - The fund has amassed assets exceeding $2 billion, positioning it among the larger ETFs in its category [1]. Group 2: Small Cap Growth Characteristics - Small cap companies are defined as those with market capitalizations below $2 billion, typically presenting higher growth potential but also higher risks compared to larger companies [2]. - Growth stocks generally exhibit higher sales and earnings growth rates, but they come with higher valuations and volatility [3]. Group 3: Costs and Performance - The ETF has an expense ratio of 0.36%, which is competitive within its peer group, and a 12-month trailing dividend yield of 0.83% [4]. - XSMO aims to match the performance of the S&P SMALLCAP 600 MOMENTUM INDEX, with a year-to-date return of approximately 9.47% and a one-year return of about 10.92% as of November 4, 2025 [7]. Group 4: Sector Exposure and Holdings - The ETF's largest allocation is to the Industrials sector, comprising about 18.9% of the portfolio, followed by Financials and Consumer Discretionary [5]. - The top holding, Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP), represents approximately 3.22% of total assets, with the top 10 holdings accounting for about 22.49% of total assets under management [6]. Group 5: Risk and Diversification - XSMO has a beta of 1.07 and a standard deviation of 21.02% over the trailing three-year period, indicating a moderate level of risk [8]. - The ETF includes around 118 holdings, which helps to effectively diversify company-specific risk [8]. Group 6: Alternatives - Other ETFs in the small cap growth space include the iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) with $13.17 billion in assets and the Vanguard Small-Cap Growth ETF (VBK) with $20.67 billion [11]. - IWO has an expense ratio of 0.24%, while VBK charges 0.07%, making them potentially attractive alternatives for investors [11]. Group 7: Market Trends - There is a growing trend among retail and institutional investors towards passively managed ETFs due to their low costs, transparency, flexibility, and tax efficiency, making them suitable for long-term investment strategies [12].

If you're interested in broad exposure to the Healthcare - Broad segment of the equity market, look no further than the Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) , a passively managed exchange traded fund launched on October 21, 2013.While an excellent vehicle for long term investors, passively managed ETFs are a popular choice among institutional and retail investors due to their low costs, transparency, flexibility, and tax efficiency.Sector ETFs also provide investors access to a broad group of companie ...

Core Insights - The comparison between Invesco Food & Beverage ETF (PBJ) and First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF (FTXG) highlights differences in cost, returns, risk, and portfolio composition, appealing to various investor preferences [1] Cost & Size - FTXG has an expense ratio of 0.60% while PBJ has a slightly higher expense ratio of 0.61% [2] - As of October 28, 2025, FTXG has a one-year return of -13.3% compared to PBJ's -5.1% [2] - FTXG offers a dividend yield of 2.9%, higher than PBJ's 2.0% [2] - Assets under management (AUM) for FTXG is $18.3 million, significantly lower than PBJ's $101.2 million [2][3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, FTXG experienced a maximum drawdown of -21.68%, while PBJ had a lower maximum drawdown of -15.82% [4] - A $1,000 investment in FTXG would have grown to $1,016 over five years, whereas the same investment in PBJ would have grown to $1,365 [4] Portfolio Composition - PBJ tracks a rules-based index focusing on U.S. food and beverage companies, with 32 holdings primarily in Consumer Defensive (78%) and some exposure to Consumer Cyclical (16%) [5] - Top holdings in PBJ include DoorDash, Monster Beverage, and Hershey [5] - FTXG is more concentrated in Consumer Defensive stocks (95%) and has minimal exposure to Basic Materials, with top holdings including PepsiCo, Archer-Daniels-Midland, and Mondelez International [6] Historical Performance - FTXG has declined by 28% from its peak in 2022, while PBJ is down 11.9% from its peak [7] - Total returns over the past five years for FTXG, including dividends, are 11.5%, while PBJ's total return is 45% [8] - Both ETFs have underperformed compared to the S&P 500, which has increased by 109% over the same period [8] Dividend Growth - The latest quarterly dividend from PBJ has increased by 72.6% compared to five years ago, while FTXG's latest quarterly dividend is up by 52.5% over the same period [9]

Core Insights - The SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (SPDW) and Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA) are both low-cost options for investors seeking international equity exposure outside the U.S. [1] - VEA is distinguished by its broader portfolio and significantly larger assets under management (AUM) compared to SPDW [1] Cost & Size Comparison - Both SPDW and VEA have an expense ratio of 0.03% [2] - As of October 28, 2025, SPDW has a 1-year return of 21.4% while VEA has a return of 21.2% [2] - VEA offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 2.7% compared to SPDW's 2.6% [2] - AUM for SPDW is $32.0 billion, while VEA has $250.8 billion [2] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over a 5-year period, SPDW experienced a maximum drawdown of 30.20%, while VEA had a drawdown of 29.71% [3] - An investment of $1,000 would grow to $1,546 in SPDW and $1,555 in VEA over the same period [3] Portfolio Composition - VEA tracks nearly 3,900 developed-market stocks, with significant allocations in financial services (24%), industrials (19%), and technology (11%) [4] - SPDW holds about 2,400 securities, focusing on developed markets outside the U.S., with similar sector allocations: financial services (23%), industrials (19%), and technology (10%) [5] - The top three holdings for both funds are identical, but VEA has a broader range of stocks [6] Regional Allocation - VEA's regional allocation is 52% in Europe, 35% in the Pacific, and 11% in North America [6] - SPDW has a concentration in Japan, the U.K., Canada, and France, with more than half of its holdings in these countries [7]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT) and the Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLK) are compared for their performance, diversification, cost, and risk metrics [1] Cost & Size - XLK has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to VGT's 0.09% [2][3] - As of October 27, 2025, XLK's one-year return is 29.9%, while VGT's is 30.6% [2] - XLK offers a dividend yield of 0.5%, slightly higher than VGT's 0.4% [3] - XLK has an AUM of $96.4 billion, while VGT has $128.3 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, XLK has a max drawdown of 33.56%, while VGT's is 35.08% [4] - A $1,000 investment in XLK would grow to $2,681 over five years, compared to $2,621 for VGT [4] Holdings & Diversification - VGT holds approximately 310 stocks, primarily in technology, with a small 1% in communication services [5] - XLK is more concentrated with only 68 holdings, focusing exclusively on technology [6] - Both funds have significant investments in NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft, but with different weightings [6] Historical Performance - Over the past five years, XLK has delivered a total return of 181.8%, while VGT has produced a total return of 174.3% [7] Index Tracking - VGT tracks the MSCI U.S. Investable Market Information Technology 25/50 index, which includes large, medium, and small U.S. tech companies [8] - XLK tracks technology stocks limited to those in the S&P 500 index [8]