Core Insights - The article compares two technology-focused ETFs, XLK and FTEC, highlighting their similarities and differences in terms of holdings, assets under management (AUM), and performance metrics [5][6][9]. Fund Overview - FTEC includes 294 holdings, providing broader exposure to U.S. tech, while XLK focuses on 70 companies within the S&P 500, heavily weighted towards larger firms [1][2]. - The top three holdings for both ETFs are Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple, with Nvidia having a higher weight in FTEC [1][2]. Performance and Metrics - Both ETFs have an expense ratio of 0.08%, making them equally affordable [3][6]. - XLK has a higher trailing one-year return and a slightly larger dividend yield compared to FTEC [3][6]. - AUM for XLK is significantly larger at $95.6 billion, compared to FTEC's $16.6 billion, indicating better liquidity for XLK [8][9]. Diversification and Risk - FTEC offers greater portfolio breadth with nearly 300 holdings, which may provide additional diversification despite many smaller positions [7][9]. - Both funds exhibit nearly identical performance and risk metrics, relying on major tech companies for their returns [6][9].

Core Insights - The Schwab International Equity ETF (SCHF) and iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) are both focused on providing exposure to developed international markets, with SCHF tracking the FTSE Developed ex US Index and IEFA targeting the MSCI EAFE universe [4][5] - Both funds have significant holdings in major companies such as ASML and Roche, and they share similar sector allocations, particularly in financial services [6][8] - The main differences between the two funds lie in their expense ratios and dividend yields, with SCHF offering a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and a higher dividend yield of 3.5% compared to IEFA's 0.07% expense ratio and 2.9% yield [7][8] Fund Characteristics - SCHF has a portfolio of 1,501 companies, while IEFA holds 2,600 stocks, indicating a broader diversification in IEFA [2][4] - Sector allocations for both funds show a tilt towards financial services (22-24%), industrials (19-20%), and healthcare (10%) [2][6] - Both funds have generated a one-year return of approximately 22% and have similar maximum five-year drawdowns of around -30% [6][8] Investment Considerations - For cost-conscious investors, SCHF's lower expense ratio may be more appealing, while income-focused investors might prefer its higher dividend yield [7][8] - The choice between SCHF and IEFA may ultimately depend on individual investment goals, with SCHF slightly edging out in terms of fees and income potential [8]

Core Insights - SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (SPYM) and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) both track the S&P 500 Index, with VOO having a significant advantage in assets under management at $1.5 trillion compared to SPYM's $101.2 billion [2][8] - Both ETFs provide low-cost access to the U.S. large-cap market, with similar performance metrics and sector exposure [3][8] Cost & Size Comparison - SPYM has an expense ratio of 0.02%, while VOO's is slightly higher at 0.03% [4][5] - Both funds have a 1-year return of 12.8% and a dividend yield of 1.1% [4][5] - SPYM has a longer track record since its inception on November 8, 2005, compared to VOO, which started in 2010 [9] Performance & Holdings - Over a 5-year period, a $1,000 investment in both SPYM and VOO would grow to $1,871 [6] - VOO holds 505 stocks with 37% in technology, while SPYM holds 504 stocks with 36% in technology, indicating nearly identical sector weights [6][7] - The largest holdings for both ETFs include Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple, closely mirroring the S&P 500 Index [6][7] Investor Considerations - Both ETFs are efficient for tracking the S&P 500, but investors should weigh the differences in AUM, expense ratios, and historical performance when choosing between them [9]

Core Insights - The iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is characterized by lower fees, broader sector coverage, and higher yield compared to the Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ), which focuses on technology and has shown recent outperformance [2][9] Cost & Size Comparison - IVV has an expense ratio of 0.03%, significantly lower than QQQ's 0.20% - As of December 15, 2025, IVV's one-year return is 12.66%, while QQQ's is 15.08% - IVV offers a dividend yield of 1.13%, compared to QQQ's 0.46% - IVV has assets under management (AUM) of $733 billion, while QQQ has $403 billion [4][5] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, QQQ experienced a maximum drawdown of -35.12%, while IVV's was -24.52% - An investment of $1,000 would have grown to $2,008 with QQQ and $1,878 with IVV over the same period [6] Portfolio Composition - QQQ is heavily weighted in technology (55%), followed by communication services (17%) and consumer cyclicals (13%), with top holdings including Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft - IVV tracks the S&P 500, holding 503 stocks across all major sectors, with the largest allocations in technology (34%), financial services (14%), and communication services (10%) [7][8] Investment Strategy Implications - IVV serves as a broad market fund aiming to replicate the S&P 500 index performance, while QQQ is a growth-oriented fund designed for above-average returns over time [10]

If you're interested in broad exposure to the Industrials - Aerospace & Defense segment of the equity market, look no further than the State Street SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR) , a passively managed exchange traded fund launched on September 28, 2011.Retail and institutional investors increasingly turn to passively managed ETFs because they offer low costs, transparency, flexibility, and tax efficiency; these kind of funds are also excellent vehicles for long term investors.Sector ETFs are also fu ...

Core Insights - The Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT) and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLK) both focus on U.S. technology companies, with VGT having a larger asset base and more holdings, while XLK has outperformed VGT in recent returns and is slightly cheaper [2][11]. Cost & Size - Both ETFs are similarly priced with modest yields; XLK has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to VGT's 0.09% [4][5]. - As of December 15, 2025, XLK has a total asset under management (AUM) of $92.8 billion, while VGT has $130.0 billion [5]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past year, XLK has returned 21.49%, outperforming VGT's 18.28% [5]. - The maximum drawdown over five years for XLK is -33.55%, while VGT's is -35.08% [6]. - A $1,000 investment in XLK would have grown to $2,319 over five years, compared to $2,222 for VGT [6]. Portfolio Holdings - VGT holds over 320 stocks, with significant allocations to Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, making it one of the largest sector ETFs with $138.0 billion in AUM [7][9]. - XLK is more concentrated with around 70 holdings and nearly 99% sector exposure, also heavily invested in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [8][9]. Investment Implications - Both ETFs have shown strong performance compared to the S&P 500, with XLK having a slight edge in returns and expense ratio, making it a potentially more attractive option for investors focused on technology [11].

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) and Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) both target large-cap U.S. growth stocks but differ in liquidity, sector reach, yield, and cost structure [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - MGK has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% compared to QQQ's 0.20% - As of December 14, 2025, MGK's 1-year return is 15.8%, while QQQ's is 15.7% - QQQ offers a higher dividend yield of 0.46% compared to MGK's 0.37% - MGK has assets under management (AUM) of $32.7 billion, while QQQ has $403.0 billion [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.02%, while QQQ had a drawdown of -35.12% - An investment of $1,000 in MGK would have grown to $2,083, while the same investment in QQQ would have grown to $2,033 [4] Holdings & Sector Allocation - QQQ contains 101 holdings, with approximately 54% in technology, 17% in communication services, and 13% in consumer cyclical sectors - Top positions in QQQ include Nvidia (9%), Apple (9%), and Microsoft (8%) [5] - MGK is more concentrated with 66 stocks, allocating 58% to technology, 15% to communication services, and 12% to consumer cyclical - Its top holdings are Nvidia (14%), Apple (12%), and Microsoft (12%) [6] Investment Implications - QQQ provides broader diversification and encompasses both mega-cap and slightly smaller large-cap growth stocks, while MGK focuses on mega-cap stocks with a market capitalization of at least $200 billion [8][10] - Investors seeking lower fees and targeted access to mega-cap stocks may prefer MGK, while those looking for more diversification may opt for QQQ [11]

Core Insights - The Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) and the Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG) target U.S. growth stocks but differ in size, sector focus, and risk-return profiles [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - VOOG has an expense ratio of 0.07% and AUM of $21.7 billion, while VUG has a lower expense ratio of 0.04% and AUM of $357.4 billion [3][10] - The one-year return for VOOG is 15.7%, compared to 14.4% for VUG, and VOOG offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 0.48% versus VUG's 0.42% [3] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over five years, VOOG has a max drawdown of -32.74%, while VUG has a max drawdown of -35.61% [4] - A $1,000 investment in VOOG would grow to $1,978, while the same investment in VUG would grow to $1,984 over five years [4] Portfolio Composition - VUG holds 160 stocks with 53% in technology, while VOOG holds 217 stocks with 45% in technology [5][6] - The top three holdings for both funds are Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, but VUG's top three holdings account for 33.51% of its total assets, compared to 27.23% for VOOG, indicating greater diversification in VOOG [9] Diversification & Volatility - VOOG's larger number of holdings and lower concentration in technology may reduce its volatility, as indicated by its lower beta of 1.10 compared to VUG's beta of 1.23 [3][8] - VOOG's structure allows for less weight toward top stocks, which can help mitigate risk [9] Liquidity Considerations - VUG's significantly larger AUM provides better liquidity and trading flexibility for investors compared to VOOG [10]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) is more concentrated with 66 holdings and 69% of assets in technology, while the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) holds 217 stocks, providing broader diversification [1][2][4] - Both funds have the same low expense ratio of 0.07%, but VOOG offers a slightly higher yield compared to MGK [3][6] - The primary distinction between the two funds lies in their exposure to the technology sector, with MGK having a heavier tilt towards tech stocks [7][8] Fund Comparison - MGK's top three positions—NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft—account for over 38% of its portfolio, while VOOG's largest positions are NVIDIA (15.3%), Microsoft (6.2%), and Apple (5.7%) [1][2][7] - VOOG has a more diversified sector allocation, with technology making up 44% of assets, followed by communication services at 15% and consumer cyclical at 12% [2][5] - Investors should consider their desired exposure to technology when choosing between MGK and VOOG, as MGK is more concentrated in this sector [8]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) and the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) target U.S. large-cap growth stocks but differ in diversification, sector tilt, and recent performance [1][2] Cost & Size - Both MGK and VOOG have an expense ratio of 0.07% - As of December 12, 2025, MGK has a 1-year return of 15.09% and a dividend yield of 0.37%, while VOOG has a 1-year return of 16.74% and a dividend yield of 0.48% - MGK has assets under management (AUM) of $33.0 billion, compared to VOOG's AUM of $21.7 billion [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.02%, while VOOG had a maximum drawdown of -32.74% - A $1,000 investment in MGK would have grown to $2,083 over five years, compared to $1,978 for VOOG [4] Portfolio Composition - VOOG holds 217 stocks, with a sector exposure of 44% in technology, followed by communication services and consumer cyclical - MGK is more concentrated with 66 holdings and a heavier tilt toward technology at 58%, with top positions in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [5][6] Investment Implications - MGK focuses on mega-cap stocks, defined as companies with a market cap of at least $200 billion, resulting in a more targeted portfolio - VOOG offers a broader approach by tracking the growth segment of the S&P 500, which may reduce volatility but could also lead to lower returns during tech rallies [8][10] - The choice between MGK and VOOG depends on investor goals, with MGK suitable for those seeking exposure to mega-cap leaders and VOOG for those wanting greater diversification [11]