Core Insights - The Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF (FTEC) and the Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT) are both designed to provide broad exposure to the U.S. information technology sector, with slight differences in cost, size, and holdings [1][2]. Cost & Size Comparison - FTEC has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to VGT's 0.09%, making it slightly more affordable for investors [3]. - VGT has a significantly larger Assets Under Management (AUM) of $130 billion versus FTEC's $16.7 billion, indicating greater liquidity [3][8]. - The one-year return for both ETFs is nearly identical, with FTEC at 21.66% and VGT at 21.65% [3]. Performance & Risk Metrics - The maximum drawdown over five years for FTEC is -34.95%, while VGT's is -35.08%, showing comparable risk levels [4]. - The growth of a $1,000 investment over five years would yield $2,181 for FTEC and $2,165 for VGT, indicating similar performance [4]. Holdings & Sector Exposure - VGT consists of 322 holdings, while FTEC has 288 holdings, providing VGT with a slight edge in diversification [5][6]. - Both ETFs primarily invest in technology stocks, with top holdings including Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [5][6]. - VGT has a higher allocation to Nvidia at 18.19% compared to FTEC's 16.61%, which could lead to different returns based on Nvidia's performance [9][10]. Summary of Differences - The main distinctions between FTEC and VGT lie in the number of holdings, AUM, and slight variations in the allocation of top holdings, while performance, risk, fees, and dividend yields are nearly identical [11].

Core Insights - The article compares two popular ETFs: Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO), highlighting their distinct approaches to portfolio construction and investment goals [1][2]. Cost & Size Comparison - QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.20% and AUM of $403 billion, while VOO has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $1.5 trillion [3]. - VOO offers a higher dividend yield of 1.12% compared to QQQ's 0.46% [3]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, QQQ has experienced a maximum drawdown of -35.12%, while VOO's maximum drawdown was -24.53% [4]. - An investment of $1,000 in QQQ would have grown to $1,959, whereas the same investment in VOO would have grown to $1,819 over five years [4]. Portfolio Composition - VOO aims to replicate the S&P 500 Index with 505 holdings, heavily weighted in technology (37%), financial services (13%), and consumer cyclical (11%) [5]. - QQQ is concentrated in the NASDAQ-100 with 101 holdings, featuring a stronger tilt toward technology (55%) and communication services (17%) [6]. Investment Strategy Implications - VOO's broad-market focus is designed for consistency and stability, making it suitable for risk-averse investors [7][10]. - QQQ targets above-average returns with a focus on growth-oriented stocks, appealing to investors seeking higher total returns despite increased volatility [9][10].

Core Insights - The Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) differ in expense ratios, holdings, and recent performance, with VWO offering broader stock coverage while IEMG has shown stronger one-year returns [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - VWO has an expense ratio of 0.07%, while IEMG's is slightly higher at 0.09% [3] - As of December 19, 2025, VWO's one-year return is 23.1%, compared to IEMG's 29.2% [3] - VWO has a dividend yield of 2.83%, slightly higher than IEMG's 2.80% [3] - VWO has a beta of 0.88, indicating lower volatility compared to IEMG's beta of 0.97 [3] - VWO has assets under management (AUM) of $141 billion, while IEMG has $117 billion [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VWO experienced a maximum drawdown of 34.3%, while IEMG had a drawdown of 37.1% [5] - The growth of $1,000 invested over five years would result in $1,255 for VWO and $1,250 for IEMG [5] Holdings Overview - IEMG holds approximately 2,725 stocks, with major sector allocations in technology (26%), financial services (21%), and consumer cyclicals (12%) [6] - VWO has a broader portfolio with 6,146 holdings, with similar sector weightings led by technology (23%), financial services (21%), and consumer cyclicals (13%) [7] Investment Implications - Both ETFs have delivered nearly identical annualized total returns since 2012, with VWO at 4.8% and IEMG at 5% [8] - Their sector allocations, expense ratios, and dividend yields are very similar, trading at around 15 times earnings [9] - IEMG includes South Korea in its portfolio, which may appeal to investors looking for exposure to that economy [10]

Core Insights - The article compares two popular ETFs, Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) and SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), highlighting their differences in cost, returns, and risk profiles [1][6]. Cost & Size Comparison - QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.20% while SPY has a lower expense ratio of 0.09% [2] - As of December 20, 2025, QQQ's one-year return is 18.97% compared to SPY's 15.13% [2] - QQQ offers a dividend yield of 0.46%, whereas SPY provides a higher yield of 1.06% [2] - QQQ has assets under management (AUM) of $403 billion, while SPY has a larger AUM of $701 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, QQQ experienced a maximum drawdown of -35.12%, while SPY had a lower drawdown of -24.50% [3] - An investment of $1,000 in QQQ would have grown to $1,990 over five years, compared to $1,844 for SPY [3] Portfolio Composition - SPY tracks the S&P 500 Index, holding 503 companies with a significant tilt towards technology (35%), financial services (14%), and consumer discretionary (11%) [4] - QQQ tracks the NASDAQ-100, with a heavier concentration in technology (55%), communication services (17%), and consumer cyclical (13%) [5] - The top three holdings in QQQ (Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple) account for 25.57% of its total assets, compared to 20.70% for SPY [8] Investment Implications - SPY is suitable for investors seeking broad-market diversification and lower volatility, while QQQ may appeal to those willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns [6][9] - SPY's higher dividend yield and lower expense ratio make it attractive for income-seeking investors [7] - QQQ's performance is heavily influenced by its top tech holdings, which can lead to higher returns during favorable market conditions [8]

Two consumer staples ETFs go head-to-head on size, history, and structure—see what sets them apart for portfolio builders.The Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC) (VDC 0.52%) and the Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA) (FSTA 0.48%) both target U.S. consumer staples, but VDC stands out for its much larger assets under management (AUM) and longer track record.Both funds aim to capture the U.S. consumer staples sector, making them potential core options for those seeking defensive equity exposure. T ...

Core Insights - The Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) focuses on S&P 500 growth stocks, while the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) includes all S&P 500 constituents, highlighting differences in cost, returns, risk, and portfolio composition that are significant for investors [2] Cost & Size Comparison - VOOG has an expense ratio of 0.07% and AUM of $21.7 billion, while VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $1.5 trillion [3] - The 1-year return for VOOG is 20.87%, compared to 16.44% for VOO, and VOOG has a dividend yield of 0.48% versus 1.12% for VOO [3][4] Performance & Risk Metrics - VOOG has a maximum drawdown of -32.74% over 5 years, while VOO's is -24.53% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in VOOG would grow to $1,945 over 5 years, compared to $1,842 for VOO [5] Portfolio Composition - VOO holds 505 companies across all sectors, with technology making up 37% of the fund, while VOOG has a heavier technology focus at 45%, followed by communication services at 16% [6][7] - The top holdings for both ETFs include Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, but these stocks constitute a larger portion of VOOG's portfolio [7] Investment Implications - Both VOOG and VOO are strong ETF options, but their differing goals and portfolio compositions present unique strengths and weaknesses [9] - VOO offers broader sector diversification, which may help reduce volatility compared to VOOG's concentrated tech exposure [9]

Core Insights - The Fidelity High Dividend ETF (FDVV) and the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) focus on delivering above-average income through strong dividend profiles [1] Expense Structure and Size - FDVV has an expense ratio of 0.15% and AUM of $7.7 billion, while VYM has a lower expense ratio of 0.06% and AUM of $84.6 billion [3] - FDVV offers a higher dividend yield of 3.02% compared to VYM's 2.42% [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over five years, FDVV has a max drawdown of -20.17% compared to VYM's -15.87% [4] - Growth of $1,000 over five years is $1,772 for FDVV and $1,565 for VYM [4] Portfolio Composition - VYM holds 566 stocks with significant sector exposure in financial services (21%), technology (18%), and healthcare (13%) [5] - FDVV invests in 107 holdings with a heavier tilt towards technology (26%), followed by financial services (19%) and consumer defensive (12%) [6] Investment Implications - FDVV provides higher yield but comes with a higher expense ratio, which may affect net earnings [7] - VYM is more diversified with a broader mix of stocks, potentially offering more stability [9] - FDVV may appeal to those seeking higher earnings despite its volatility, while VYM may suit investors looking for diversification and lower fees [10]

Core Insights - The iShares Core S&P Small-Cap ETF (IJR) and iShares Morningstar Small-Cap ETF (ISCB) target U.S. small-cap stocks but differ in costs, diversification, and income potential [5][6] - IJR has a larger asset base of $88 billion and higher liquidity with an average daily trading volume of over 6 million shares, making it more appealing for investors prioritizing liquidity [7] - ISCB offers broader diversification with 1,539 holdings and a lower expense ratio of 0.04% compared to IJR's 0.06%, which may attract cost-conscious investors [3][8] Cost Comparison - IJR provides a higher dividend yield of 1.9% compared to ISCB's 1.2%, which is significant for income-focused investors [3][8] - The expense ratio for ISCB is 0.04%, while IJR charges 0.06%, indicating a marginal cost advantage for ISCB [3][8] Portfolio Composition - IJR holds 635 names with significant sector weights in financial services, industrials, and technology, while ISCB has a more diversified portfolio with 1,539 holdings across similar sectors [1][2][8] - The largest positions in ISCB, such as Ciena, Coherent, and Rocket Lab, each account for less than 1% of assets, reflecting its diversified approach [2] Investment Strategy - Investors seeking maximum liquidity and confidence in fund size may prefer IJR, while those looking for lower costs and broader diversification might opt for ISCB, despite its lower trading volume [9]

The international ETF actively invests in ex-U.S. equities with a computer-aided approach. The strategy considers stocks from within the MSCI EAFE index, a market cap-weighted index of developed market stocks. FENI looks to beat the index with its approach by emphasizing factors like growth, profitability, and historical valuations. The international ETF space has rewarded investors greatly so far in 2025. One particular strategy, FENI, recently crossed $5 billion in AUM. It has a case for consideration ahe ...

Core Insights - The article compares two consumer staples ETFs, the State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) and the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS), highlighting their distinct approaches to sector exposure and investment strategies [1][2]. Expense Ratios and Portfolio Structure - XLP has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to RSPS's 0.40%, making it more cost-effective for investors [3][10]. - XLP manages $15.5 billion in assets under management (AUM), while RSPS has $236.2 million, indicating XLP's larger scale and potential liquidity advantages [3][11]. - XLP's portfolio is market-cap-weighted, leading to heavy exposure to large companies like Walmart and Procter & Gamble, with its top three holdings comprising nearly 30% of the fund [5][7]. - RSPS employs an equal-weighting strategy, providing more balanced exposure across its 37 holdings, with top positions representing less than 4% of assets each [6][7]. Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past year, RSPS has returned -5.05%, while XLP has returned -3.19%, indicating better performance for XLP in this timeframe [3]. - The maximum drawdown over five years for RSPS is -18.61%, compared to -16.32% for XLP, suggesting that XLP has been slightly less volatile [4]. - The growth of $1,000 invested over five years would yield $992 for RSPS and $1,180 for XLP, further illustrating XLP's superior performance [4]. Investment Implications - XLP's concentrated approach can lead to higher returns when top holdings perform well, but it also poses risks if those stocks underperform [8][9]. - RSPS's diversified strategy may protect against volatility but could dilute the potential gains from high-performing stocks [9]. - Investors should consider the trade-offs between cost, performance, and risk when choosing between these two ETFs [10].